"Constitution check" (??) - Can guns used in mass shootings be banned?

[asaratis]

There's no second amendment right to own an AR-15.

AR-15s come under the category of arms. At the time of the writing, there were no automatic firearms. AR-15s are not excluded from ownership by citizens.

The banning of AR-15s would be just about as effective as the banning of pipe bombs. It would have ABSOLUTELY no effect on terrorists.

The banning of anything only creates a black market for the banned item. We banned alcohol for a while. How did that work out? We banned certain drugs. How did that work out? We have laws against murder. How has that worked out? We have laws against adultery? How has that worked out?

People that think banning certain guns will make everything peaceful in Mayberry are living a non-realistic dream.

The only thing that will stop a rampaging terrorist with a firearm is a well armed LEO or a good citizen with a firearm. Since LEOs are always "just around the corner", I prefer that good citizens carry and use their own weapons and take out the threat when the need arises, not after LEO and the press corp gets there to count the bodies.

Laws banning AR-15s (or magazines for more than 10 rounds) will have absolutely no effect on criminals that want to use them.

Grab this: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!

 

[Little-Acorn]

well damnit ... scratch that scud launcher from my xmas list ... can I still get an F16 and a chain gun ?

And then when the liberals get refuted again, they start ranting hysterically like that.

 

[bendog]

There's no second amendment right to own an AR-15.

AR-15s come under the category of arms. At the time of the writing, there were no automatic firearms. AR-15s are not excluded ownership.

The banning of AR-15s would be just about as effective as the banning of pipe bombs. It would have ABSOLUTELY no effect on terrorists.

The banning of anything only creates a black market for the banned item. We banned alcohol for a while. How did that work out? We banned certain drugs. How did that work out? We have laws against murder. How has that worked out? We have laws against adultery? How has that worked out?

People that think banning certain guns will make everything peaceful in Mayberry are living a non-realistic dream.

The only thing that will stop a rampaging terrorist with a firearm is a well armed LEO or a good citizen with a firearm. Since LEOs are always "just around the corner", I prefer that good citizens carry and use their own weapons and take out the threat when the need arises, not after LEO and the press corp gets there to count the bodies.

Laws banning AR-15s (or magazines for more than 10 rounds) will have absolutely no effect on criminals that want to use them.

Grab this: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!

possibly true, but irrelevant as to the limits on govt powers, because 7 justices don't want to weigh in. So, local govts can enact limitations. Whether, over time and because more and more govts act, the limitations have a positive effect ..... we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Little-Acorn]

possibly true, but irrelevant as to the limits on govt powers, because 7 justices don't want to weigh in. So, local govts can enact limitations.

Similarly, the laws against bank robbery are irrelevant, since you can't put massive guard forces inside every bank. So, people who want to violate the law can still steal some of the money.

 

[asaratis]

There's no second amendment right to own an AR-15.

AR-15s come under the category of arms. At the time of the writing, there were no automatic firearms. AR-15s are not excluded ownership.

The banning of AR-15s would be just about as effective as the banning of pipe bombs. It would have ABSOLUTELY no effect on terrorists.

The banning of anything only creates a black market for the banned item. We banned alcohol for a while. How did that work out? We banned certain drugs. How did that work out? We have laws against murder. How has that worked out? We have laws against adultery? How has that worked out?

People that think banning certain guns will make everything peaceful in Mayberry are living a non-realistic dream.

The only thing that will stop a rampaging terrorist with a firearm is a well armed LEO or a good citizen with a firearm. Since LEOs are always "just around the corner", I prefer that good citizens carry and use their own weapons and take out the threat when the need arises, not after LEO and the press corp gets there to count the bodies.

Laws banning AR-15s (or magazines for more than 10 rounds) will have absolutely no effect on criminals that want to use them.

Grab this: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!

possibly true, but irrelevant as to the limits on govt powers, because 7 justices don't want to weigh in. So, local govts can enact limitations. Whether, over time and because more and more govts act, the limitations have a positive effect ..... we'll have to wait and see.

Local governments take liberty of enacting local gun bans. This does not make their bans constitutional or effective. Chicago has some of the most stringent guns laws in the nation. Chicago has more gun violence than cities with no gun laws.

When will the liberal bimbos WAKE UP!

 

[bendog]

There's no second amendment right to own an AR-15.

AR-15s come under the category of arms. At the time of the writing, there were no automatic firearms. AR-15s are not excluded ownership.

The banning of AR-15s would be just about as effective as the banning of pipe bombs. It would have ABSOLUTELY no effect on terrorists.

The banning of anything only creates a black market for the banned item. We banned alcohol for a while. How did that work out? We banned certain drugs. How did that work out? We have laws against murder. How has that worked out? We have laws against adultery? How has that worked out?

People that think banning certain guns will make everything peaceful in Mayberry are living a non-realistic dream.

The only thing that will stop a rampaging terrorist with a firearm is a well armed LEO or a good citizen with a firearm. Since LEOs are always "just around the corner", I prefer that good citizens carry and use their own weapons and take out the threat when the need arises, not after LEO and the press corp gets there to count the bodies.

Laws banning AR-15s (or magazines for more than 10 rounds) will have absolutely no effect on criminals that want to use them.

Grab this: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!

possibly true, but irrelevant as to the limits on govt powers, because 7 justices don't want to weigh in. So, local govts can enact limitations. Whether, over time and because more and more govts act, the limitations have a positive effect ..... we'll have to wait and see.

Local governments take liberty of enacting local gun bans. This does not make their bans constitutional or effective. Chicago has some of the most stringent guns laws in the nation. Chicago has more gun violence than cities with no gun laws.

When will the liberal bimbos WAKE UP!

Well, the issue isn't liberal or conservative. Two circuit courts have now found the limitations constitutional, and the supreme court does not want to take up the issue. So, legally speaking, the gun lobby should not bring more actions because in all likelihood, it's not going to go well for them. It may be that 3-4 justices find the limitations constitutional, and 3-4 of them want to see what happens.

 

[asaratis]

There's no second amendment right to own an AR-15.

AR-15s come under the category of arms. At the time of the writing, there were no automatic firearms. AR-15s are not excluded ownership.

The banning of AR-15s would be just about as effective as the banning of pipe bombs. It would have ABSOLUTELY no effect on terrorists.

The banning of anything only creates a black market for the banned item. We banned alcohol for a while. How did that work out? We banned certain drugs. How did that work out? We have laws against murder. How has that worked out? We have laws against adultery? How has that worked out?

People that think banning certain guns will make everything peaceful in Mayberry are living a non-realistic dream.

The only thing that will stop a rampaging terrorist with a firearm is a well armed LEO or a good citizen with a firearm. Since LEOs are always "just around the corner", I prefer that good citizens carry and use their own weapons and take out the threat when the need arises, not after LEO and the press corp gets there to count the bodies.

Laws banning AR-15s (or magazines for more than 10 rounds) will have absolutely no effect on criminals that want to use them.

Grab this: CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!

possibly true, but irrelevant as to the limits on govt powers, because 7 justices don't want to weigh in. So, local govts can enact limitations. Whether, over time and because more and more govts act, the limitations have a positive effect ..... we'll have to wait and see.

Local governments take liberty of enacting local gun bans. This does not make their bans constitutional or effective. Chicago has some of the most stringent guns laws in the nation. Chicago has more gun violence than cities with no gun laws.

When will the liberal bimbos WAKE UP!

Well, the issue isn't liberal or conservative. Two circuit courts have now found the limitations constitutional, and the supreme court does not want to take up the issue. So, legally speaking, the gun lobby should not bring more actions because in all likelihood, it's not going to go well for them. It may be that 3-4 justices find the limitations constitutional, and 3-4 of them want to see what happens.

The limitations are constitutional on private property. They are not constitutional on public property. I concur with the restrictions at court houses, government buildings, police stations and the like...but there should be a "check your weapon at the door" policy whereby a carrier can give up his gun on entry and retrieve it on exit. I generally lock mine in the car when visiting places like this.

It is my constitutional right to carry weapons anywhere within the nation. It is my state given privilege to carry weapons concealed on my person anywhere within the state (and in others by reciprocity). It is (unless ordered by court) my choice whether I enter areas that have restrictions on carrying weapons.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The limitations are constitutional on private property.

No,, they are not. You can't take someone's gun away when he is on your private property, unless he is threatening you or killing someone with it.

But you can ask him to leave your private property any time. Whether it's because he smells bad, or you don't like his face, or he's carrying a gun, or if you've decided on a private-property curfew or whatever.

They are not constitutional on public property. I concur with the restrictions at court houses, government buildings, police stations and the like...

I get a kick out of the flat contradiction voiced here.

It is my constitutional right to carry weapons anywhere within the nation.

Correct.

 

[Contumacious]

The limitations are constitutional on private property.

No,, they are not. You can't take someone's gun away when he is on your private property, unless he is threatening you or killing someone with it.

But you can ask him to leave your private property any time. Whether it's because he smells bad, or you don't like his face, or he's carrying a gun, or if you've decided on a private-property curfew or whatever.

They are not constitutional on public property. I concur with the restrictions at court houses, government buildings, police stations and the like...

I get a kick out of the flat contradiction voiced here.

It is my constitutional right to carry weapons anywhere within the nation.

Correct.

IT APPEARS THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS GETTING READY TO DICTATE WHAT KIND OF FIREARMS WE CAN USE.


.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no second amendment right to own an AR-15.

Sure there is. You have the right to own a Thompson sib machine gun.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk