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.
The point is that there's no point to ban them as they do nothing to make a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine more deadly -- if you cannot show cause to ban an item - any item - then you cannot ban it.Then what's the point of having them? Why not ban them since they are dangerous but has no effect on proper use of a rifle?
Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.I don't think the IDEA of deciding which guns to ban and which to allow is silly. At the least, it's a well-intentioned idea that cannot be enforced in the real world. At the best, though, it can save lives while not unnecessarily intruding on 2nd Amendment rights.
Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.As with porn, it's hard to define "assault weapon" for legal purposes. Most people don't want the average citizen having a military grade weapon whose sole purpose is to kill humans.
I took time to read the proposed ban. The bill defines assault weapons as any that has a detachable magazine and one or more "military characteristics". The list above are the "military characteristics" in question, so if a rifle has a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, it's considered an assault weapon and would be banned. (BTW, the ban includes forward grips and threaded barrels designed for silencers.)The bill for the proposed 2013 assault weapon ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included one or more of the following accessories:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades
Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.
Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.
Today is different. We have the largest standing military in the world, several levels of police, and no frontier. I'm not suggesting the US is completely peaceful! I'm just saying the conditions which required the 2nd Amendment have changed. Therefore, we can make changes to what the 2nd Amendment defines as "arms" and "well regulated militia". We cannot ignore it, nor can we ban all weapons--but banning military-grade weapons is possible.
According to the SCoUS in Miller and Heller...Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.
Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It says nothing "exactly" about assault weapons.
No.The classic "fire in a theater" limit to free speech is considered Constitutional because, although it does abridge freedom of speech, it can hurt innocent people;
For the same to apply to the 2nd amdendment, you have to show that simple posession/ownership of an AR15 harms people or place them in a condition of clear, present and immeduate danger; if you cannot, then your example dioes not apply and your argument fails.The same applies to the 2nd Amendment. We can limit gun ownership (not take all guns, not ban them all, just some) and still be true to the Amendment.
No response. Hmm.According to the SCoUS in Miller and Heller...Banning -any- sort of semi-automatic rifle intrudes on the 2nd amendment.
Never mind that these are exactly the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd.
2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It says nothing "exactly" about assault weapons.
To be protected by the 2nd, a wepon must be suitable for service in the militia, part of the oridinary military equipment in common use at the time, and suitable for any of the traditionally legal purposes one might thave for a firearm.
There is no better specific example of this sort of weapon than the M16/AR15 platform and no better general example than an 'assault weapon'. It is therefore impossible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' are not protected by the 2nd.
No.The classic "fire in a theater" limit to free speech is considered Constitutional because, although it does abridge freedom of speech, it can hurt innocent people;
The 1st amendment does not protect it because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; similarly, the 1st does not protect slander and libel because they actually cause harm. We do not limit the exercise of a right, any right, because there is some possible potential for harm - because "it can hurt someone" - we limit it when it causes actual harm or created the previously mentioned condition.
For the same to apply to the 2nd amdendment, you have to show that simple posession/ownership of an AR15 harms people or place them in a condition of clear, present and immeduate danger; if you cannot, then your example dioes not apply and your argument fails.The same applies to the 2nd Amendment. We can limit gun ownership (not take all guns, not ban them all, just some) and still be true to the Amendment.
I look forward to your deminstration as to how simple posession of an AR15 causes harm or creates that condition; I further look forward as to your argument as to how an AR15 does NOT do this once you remove the bayonet lug and flash suppressor.
I'm against the ban.
But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.
The only one I can see that may be at all useful for law enforcement is the ban on folding stocks. They make the gun easier to hide under a coat.
The inclusion of the listed accessories determines which rifles are acceptabe and which are not, thus creating the distinction between the two. Do you agree that there's no rational basis for banning one set of rifles but not the other?But your question avoids the point. They aren't banning it for those things. But banning it because those accessories differentiate an "assault rifle" from a "hunting rifle". And while it might be a silly distinction, that is the goal.
I wouldn't go that far. But I think the distinction is small enough not to matter a whole lot.
But they are there. The ability to throw a 30 round clip on them for one.
I just don't think the distinctions make all that much difference. I also think the whole thing is pointless with the number of pistols out there. Pistols are where it's at when it comes to crime. No question about that. Banning assault rifles/weapons or whatever the fuck people want to call them will have virtually no impact on anything.
I am okay with more regulation of firearms. But bans don't accomplish much of anything. This country already has too many guns for a ban to be at all effective. It's like trying to plug a damn after the town was washed away. What's the point?
