Mass stabbing in Florida - it's time to implement knife control.

[harmonica]

so----thank you....the knife argument is idiotic
.....firearm controlled UK, German, France, Japan, etc etc have murder rates much lower--this is what we want = lower murder rates, yes?
..not anti-gun but pro-common sense....the firearm is designed to KILL--only...so common sense says it should have MORE regulations than cars....etc /etc .....and don't try the stupid cars kill more idiocy...that's worse than the knife idiocy

I will ask again. How are more regulations going to affect anyone except law abiding citizens? Don't druggies still use drugs? If I wanted to get some cocaine, do you think I could find it? the difference is that cocaine would only kill me, not kill other people. If law abiding citizens have a very difficult time getting guns like in NYC and Chicago, how will they protect themselves from the non-law abiding folks? With a knife?

you won't be able to stop everything--but you want to keep the proliferation down
...you want to make it harder for bad guys and you will STILL have your firearm
no gifting/no private sales/no online/etc --common sense

Yes...we get it...you are an actual fascist..........

hahahha
..I'm not anti-gun...if I could, I would own one of everything
..I'm pro-common sense

No...you aren't.......your posts show this....

you contradict yourself/etc
....you are pro-bullshit and anti-common sense = POOLS/knives/cars = firearms= idiocy
..and the proper term is firearm--not gun....you don't even know the proper terms

fire·arm
/ˈfī(ə)rˌärm
noun

1. a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

gun
/ɡən/
noun

1. 1.
   a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

 

[2aguy]

I will ask again. How are more regulations going to affect anyone except law abiding citizens? Don't druggies still use drugs? If I wanted to get some cocaine, do you think I could find it? the difference is that cocaine would only kill me, not kill other people. If law abiding citizens have a very difficult time getting guns like in NYC and Chicago, how will they protect themselves from the non-law abiding folks? With a knife?

you won't be able to stop everything--but you want to keep the proliferation down
...you want to make it harder for bad guys and you will STILL have your firearm
no gifting/no private sales/no online/etc --common sense

Yes...we get it...you are an actual fascist..........

hahahha
..I'm not anti-gun...if I could, I would own one of everything
..I'm pro-common sense

No...you aren't.......your posts show this....

sure--just like the UK is more violent than the US
hahahhahahahahah

Moron...even politfact shows Britain is more violent than the U.S.....

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

And more......


U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/Murder - iGeek

Something important to know is that the U.K. ONS distorts their numbers for political reasons. While the rest of the world measures murder rates as people who are killed, the ONS does two things to cheat:

1. They exclude Scotland and North Ireland from their counting: I guess when they are murdered, it isn’t as important to ONS as if Britons die. While that is only about 10% of the total population of the UK, it is significantly more of their crimes and murders.
2. They only count murders where someone is charged with a crime. (Only between 1/2 and 3/4ths of all murders are counted).

Something to note is that Scotland and Ireland have higher murder rates than in England/Whales and the U.S.despite their gun control. So we know that gun control doesn’t work for Scotland and Ireland.

When propagandists compare the “official” U.S. to U.K. numbers, they’re ignoring these differences in accounting. But to be honest, we need to normalize (correct) across countries accounting. I could either raise UK’s numbers up, or the U.S. numbers down, but you have to make up for the gimmick (where an uncharged homicide isn’t counted in the U.K.). So I corrected the U.S. down (the US with UK accounting), and you get the medium red trend line. The U.S. is not equal to UK or England, but is much better than Scotland or North Ireland with their gun control.

But wait there’s more
The other gimmick used, is whenever you compare two different collections in statistics, you must correct for differences between sub-groups. (Or only focus on the sub-group).

Example you do two polls, one has 80% of respondents that are 55 and older, and other has 80% of respondents that are 25 and younger. You're going to get dramatically different results. So you normalize both for population average -- or you throw out all ages that you don't care about. This is all statistics 101 — which shows that anyone who doesn’t make these correction either doesn’t know statistics, or is a propagandists, intentionally misleading people.

In the U.S. Blacks are 1/7th the population, but over 1/2 of all our murders, and Latino’s are about the same 15% of the population and are responsible for over half the rest of murders.England has virtually no blacks or latino’s (<3%). So if we correct for those demographic differences (or just compare a subset — the U.S.’s white murder rate to the UK’s white murder rate), we find that in the bright red trend line, that the U.S. has a lower murder rate than the U.K.

Racist:Now around this time, people that can’t handle the facts or truth, start trying to distract by claiming either I’m racist, or this data is racist. But data is not making judgements, it’s just facts. The problem isn’t racial in America, but it is cultural. Black immigrants don’t have the same murder rates as Black Americans. And if you dive into the groups, you find rural blacks (and whites and latinos) have lower murder rates than inner cities. It’s also not income or income equality based since rural poor have lower murder rates than urban poor -- and many richer countries have more murders/crime than many poorer ones. It's about failures of the inner city gang culture.

So facts are facts. In the U.S. we have a lower white murder rate (but higher black murder rate) than the U.K. And white’s in America have higher gun ownership rates than blacks (or than whites in the U.K.) — so we know that gun control doesn’t help murder rates for whites. At least across these two countries. And the reason for differences among blacks in the two countries is easily explained by gang culture in the U.S.

But what about violent crime?

• Violent crime is down in the UK, from a peak of 3.8 million to 1.3 million violent crimes last year, so they are trending better... just not as much as we dropped over the same time.
• But remember, that in a country 1/5th our size. 'That means they’re ONLY at about 1,776/100K violent crimes per year, versus the U.S. 466.
• And if you adjust for race/gangs in a few urban areas (like they threw out Scotland/Ireland, and do the same to the worst Democrat controlled cities), or just look at white crime rates, the U.S. drops to about 1/8th of the UK's violent crime rates
• England/Wales rape rate (or attempted) is about 85,000/year (w/another 40K sexual assaults), about the same as ours (1/3rd Sweden’s), but more of theirs are at knifepoint, and they don’t include Scotland or North Ireland (which appears closer to Sweden's rates and puts their rates well over ours).
• They still have, 2.6x more assaults than the US. (Scotland has an astounding 5.7x more than the U.S.), far higher burglaries and robberies, and far far worse with home-invasion type robberies (where armed robbers come in when owners are home and just tie them up and beat them).
• While the UK's total crime rate is about double ours, you have to remember, ours is pooled in a few urban areas w/Gang problems (DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago), their problems are far more widespread -- ours Is lower in most of the nation (geographically) and pooled in a few cities (and most just in a few of the worst / Democrat controlled cities).

 

[2aguy]

I will ask again. How are more regulations going to affect anyone except law abiding citizens? Don't druggies still use drugs? If I wanted to get some cocaine, do you think I could find it? the difference is that cocaine would only kill me, not kill other people. If law abiding citizens have a very difficult time getting guns like in NYC and Chicago, how will they protect themselves from the non-law abiding folks? With a knife?

you won't be able to stop everything--but you want to keep the proliferation down
...you want to make it harder for bad guys and you will STILL have your firearm
no gifting/no private sales/no online/etc --common sense

Yes...we get it...you are an actual fascist..........

hahahha
..I'm not anti-gun...if I could, I would own one of everything
..I'm pro-common sense

No...you aren't.......your posts show this....

you contradict yourself/etc
....you are pro-bullshit and anti-common sense = POOLS/knives/cars = firearms= idiocy
..and the proper term is firearm--not gun....you don't even know the proper terms

fire·arm
/ˈfī(ə)rˌärm
noun

1. a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

gun
/ɡən/
noun

1. 1.
   a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

Wow....that was impressive........nazi word police on duty....

 

[2aguy]

I will ask again. How are more regulations going to affect anyone except law abiding citizens? Don't druggies still use drugs? If I wanted to get some cocaine, do you think I could find it? the difference is that cocaine would only kill me, not kill other people. If law abiding citizens have a very difficult time getting guns like in NYC and Chicago, how will they protect themselves from the non-law abiding folks? With a knife?

you won't be able to stop everything--but you want to keep the proliferation down
...you want to make it harder for bad guys and you will STILL have your firearm
no gifting/no private sales/no online/etc --common sense

Yes...we get it...you are an actual fascist..........

hahahha
..I'm not anti-gun...if I could, I would own one of everything
..I'm pro-common sense

No...you aren't.......your posts show this....

sure--just like the UK is more violent than the US
hahahhahahahahah

Yep....it is....

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

 

[harmonica]

you won't be able to stop everything--but you want to keep the proliferation down
...you want to make it harder for bad guys and you will STILL have your firearm
no gifting/no private sales/no online/etc --common sense

Yes...we get it...you are an actual fascist..........

hahahha
..I'm not anti-gun...if I could, I would own one of everything
..I'm pro-common sense

No...you aren't.......your posts show this....

you contradict yourself/etc
....you are pro-bullshit and anti-common sense = POOLS/knives/cars = firearms= idiocy
..and the proper term is firearm--not gun....you don't even know the proper terms

fire·arm
/ˈfī(ə)rˌärm
noun

1. a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun.

gun
/ɡən/
noun

1. 1.
   a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.

Wow....that was impressive........nazi word police on duty....

...I rarely call out people on grammar/etc...but when they do it constantly that means they have a problem
....well, if you don't even know the proper terms than you must not have much knowledge on the subject--you do agree?

 

[harmonica]

you won't be able to stop everything--but you want to keep the proliferation down
...you want to make it harder for bad guys and you will STILL have your firearm
no gifting/no private sales/no online/etc --common sense

Yes...we get it...you are an actual fascist..........

hahahha
..I'm not anti-gun...if I could, I would own one of everything
..I'm pro-common sense

No...you aren't.......your posts show this....

sure--just like the UK is more violent than the US
hahahhahahahahah

Yep....it is....

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

impossible

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wouldn't it be ironic if some armed criminal broke into Brainless's house in the middle of the night and started shooting up his family. All Brainless could do is watch, because he's not armed. And right before Brainless gets shot, he exclaims - "But I thought guns were illegal!"

Won’t happen. That mostly happens to people involved in criminal activity, I’m not.

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

SCOTUS has not ruled at all on this matter.
It's been done before.
There are plenty of restrictions already in place. The is nothing in the 2nd that stipulates what "arms" must be.

I just gave you one decision, and one clarification on the topic by the guy who authored the opinion in Heller, you dope.......

To repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

-----

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

----

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller has not a thing to do with this, dope.

Has everything to do with it.

Heller only addresses the individual's right to "keep and bear arms". It did not address what those arms must be. In fact, Scalia's opinion says clearly that issue is NOT settled.


III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[SmokeALib]

Wouldn't it be ironic if some armed criminal broke into Brainless's house in the middle of the night and started shooting up his family. All Brainless could do is watch, because he's not armed. And right before Brainless gets shot, he exclaims - "But I thought guns were illegal!"

Won’t happen. That mostly happens to people involved in criminal activity, I’m not.

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

Only if you're a pussified leftist.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Won’t happen. That mostly happens to people involved in criminal activity, I’m not.

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

Only if you're a pussified leftist.

So what are you saying? Is it a "sporting rifle" or not?

 

[rjs330]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

Moron....total dead from all gun types in mass public shootings in 2018.... 93.

Schools are not in danger you dumb ass.....

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year......

Cars kill more kids every single year.....even when you include all gun murder...you dumb ass...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017, gun murder...319

<1...12
1-4...44
5-9...78
10-14...185

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017.... Kids (<1 - 14)

Guns....62

Cars...1,208

2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261


Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

I'm not sure I like the knives vs guns argument without an apples to apples comparison. Guns were used to kill 93 people in mass shootings. How many people were killed by knives in mass stabbings? Not near as many.

Same goes for cars. How many people are killed ON PURPOSE in mass attacks by cars each year? Probably not as many as guns.

My big thing is that there will be NO END to gun control. You may slow down the mass deaths by banning the AR, but soon the nut jobs will be using the "plain ole hunting rifle" or shotguns to commit mass murder. Then the lefties will call for their ban right?

Let's face it, they will ultimately be calling for banning ALL firearms OR regulating it to the point where it will be nearly impossible to obtain a firearm.

I basically agree and..

If cars are killing more people by accident (not on purpose) than guns are killing people by accident, it would seem cars are much more dangerous.

It's not about the object is it. Cars don't kill people on purpose or accidentally. Neither do guns. It the person! But more people are killed using guns on purpose than people killed using cars on purpose.

The point is 5he left will eventually come after all the guns.

 

[rjs330]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

What about regular rifles. Should they be outlawed too? Because I guarantee that if assault rifles are gun these deranged people will use a regular rifle.

AR-15s are regular rifles....they are no different from any other semi-auto rifle.....they know it, which is why they want it banned...allowing them to ban AR-15s means they get to come back and demand all the other semi-automatic rifles be banned...since they all operate the same way.

Yep my point exactly!

 

[rjs330]

Those are non-criminals? Are you insane? And, btw, it is a well known fact that all liberals (needs government to think and do for them) are pussies.

All? I dont agree. Most successful people are liberals.

Sounds like some more barry bathhouse banter.

Facts. I have conservative views and liberals views I dont vote for parties....in the 20 years I have been here and because of my work if it wasnt for progressives this country would be just like many backward thinking countries... and i say this and I'm anti abortion, dont favour same sex marriage, and much more. I also firmly beleive that most of the evil comes from the right.

You don't favor abortion, yet you say most evil comes from the right? What is more evil than slaughtering an innocent unborn baby?
I say you don't know whattofuck you are - kinda like those tranny he-she's.

That right there what it turned me off with the hypocrite right...most of you are hypocrites, haters, racists. Bigots.

Oh oh the best tactics of the left! When you don't have an argument resort to make calling.

 

[Leo123]

Wouldn't it be ironic if some armed criminal broke into Brainless's house in the middle of the night and started shooting up his family. All Brainless could do is watch, because he's not armed. And right before Brainless gets shot, he exclaims - "But I thought guns were illegal!"

Won’t happen. That mostly happens to people involved in criminal activity, I’m not.

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

If you think a sporting rifle is a toy I pray to God you never own one.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Won’t happen. That mostly happens to people involved in criminal activity, I’m not.

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

If you think a sporting rifle is a toy I pray to God you never own one.

LOL...

What is "sporting" if not playing, dope?

 

[2aguy]

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

SCOTUS has not ruled at all on this matter.
It's been done before.
There are plenty of restrictions already in place. The is nothing in the 2nd that stipulates what "arms" must be.

I just gave you one decision, and one clarification on the topic by the guy who authored the opinion in Heller, you dope.......

To repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

-----

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

----

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller has not a thing to do with this, dope.

Has everything to do with it.

Heller only addresses the individual's right to "keep and bear arms". It did not address what those arms must be. In fact, Scalia's opinion says clearly that issue is NOT settled.


III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.

You purposely fail to use this point....from Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

h

This is what Scalia wrote about those covered arms......in Friedman v Highland Park....and since he wrote the opinion in Heller....this is exactly what he meant in Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

Only if you're a pussified leftist.

So what are you saying? Is it a "sporting rifle" or not?

It is a civilian and police rifle.

 

[2aguy]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

Moron....total dead from all gun types in mass public shootings in 2018.... 93.

Schools are not in danger you dumb ass.....

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year......

Cars kill more kids every single year.....even when you include all gun murder...you dumb ass...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017, gun murder...319

<1...12
1-4...44
5-9...78
10-14...185

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017.... Kids (<1 - 14)

Guns....62

Cars...1,208

2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261


Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

I'm not sure I like the knives vs guns argument without an apples to apples comparison. Guns were used to kill 93 people in mass shootings. How many people were killed by knives in mass stabbings? Not near as many.

Same goes for cars. How many people are killed ON PURPOSE in mass attacks by cars each year? Probably not as many as guns.

My big thing is that there will be NO END to gun control. You may slow down the mass deaths by banning the AR, but soon the nut jobs will be using the "plain ole hunting rifle" or shotguns to commit mass murder. Then the lefties will call for their ban right?

Let's face it, they will ultimately be calling for banning ALL firearms OR regulating it to the point where it will be nearly impossible to obtain a firearm.

I basically agree and..

If cars are killing more people by accident (not on purpose) than guns are killing people by accident, it would seem cars are much more dangerous.

It's not about the object is it. Cars don't kill people on purpose or accidentally. Neither do guns. It the person! But more people are killed using guns on purpose than people killed using cars on purpose.

The point is 5he left will eventually come after all the guns.

Which means that cars are more deadly, they kill more people accidentally than people do intentionally with guns......so cars should be banned....right?

 

[Leo123]

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

"Sporting rifles" are toys. Very dangerous toys.

If you think a sporting rifle is a toy I pray to God you never own one.

LOL...

What is "sporting" if not playing, dope?

Look up the definition and stop trolling

 

[Wry Catcher]

All pointy or sharp tools and knives should require government oversight immediately.

Tallahassee, Florida, police investigate 'massive stabbing' at business
Tallahassee, Florida, police investigate 'massive stabbing' at business

Stupid thread, but to be expected considering the author. Gravity and push button, dirks and daggers / two edged blades locked in place are all illegal.

One more example of an arm being infringed, making the 2nd A. impotent.