Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.
The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.
9.4. Summary
Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non- banned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
(snip)
Having said this, the bans impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading.
There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.
The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.
... you can show:
1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment
If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.
Can you show:There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.
The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.
If you cannot show it would have been, and will be, effective, in stopping such incidents how can you show that the ban is pursuant to a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to that end?1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.
Show this to be true,3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)
Silence for a moment and think, you moron. You have been answered competently by your betters morally and by those who know the Constitution and love our country more than you.
1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.
3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)
QUOTE]
The Heller decision did not specify which guns were protected or allow for the confiscation of guns already legally owned. What the Heller decision covered was whether or not the second amendment applied to the district of Columbia - a federal enclave. The ruling was that it did.
The next ruling by the high court was the McDonald v. Chicago and it was a decision that the second amendment extended to all the states and not just federal enclaves. There has never been a ruling on what guns or under what conditions guns can be banned. There has never been a decision of what reimbursement must be made to owners of legal guns in the case of confiscation.
As a matter of fact there is one decision that stated that the second amendment does protect the rights to own a military weapon by the reason of the founders wanting the people to be able to protect the country from tyrany whether it was external or internal.
Therefore banning "assault weapons" is a clear violation of the intent of the second amendment.
Furthermore, if you empower the government to restrict or remove one part of the Bill of Rights you have opened the door to the restriction or removal of all of our rights. Would you like to lose your right to free speech? How about your freedom of religion? Would you like to be searched as you walk down the street? or have your home searched without a warrant?
Be very careful in what powers you give to your government. History shows us that very bad things happen when the government has more power than the people.
Eternal vigilance in the price of freedom.
Sooo..Silence for a moment and think, you moron.
Sooo..Silence for a moment and think, you moron.
You freely admit that you -cannot- show how the ban meets a compelling state interest and that you -cannot- show how a ban does not violate the Constitution.
Thank you for playing.
Save your breath - Jake is neither willing nor able to have this conversation to any worthwile degree.The Heller decision did not specify which guns were protected...
Correct. Miller.As a matter of fact there is one decision that stated that the second amendment does protect the rights to own a military weapon by the reason of the founders wanting the people to be able to protect the country from tyrany whether it was external or internal.
Therefore banning "assault weapons" is a clear violation of the intent of the second amendment.
Easy.What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?
Easy.What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.
You know this has been settled, right?That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.Easy.What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.
