We should not tolerate -any- of our rights being "whittled away"; that you tolerate it for other rights on no way means that anyone should tolerate it for the right to arms.A "deer rifle" is akin to a sniping rifle, which falls under the protection of the 2nd as discussed in Miller. Fact of the matter is that, under Miller, an AR-15 w. 20/30rd USGI magazines is quite possible the very best example of the sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.So, my deer rifle is not covered by the 2nd amendment, but James Holmes's AR15 with 100 round magazine is?
Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so.
AR15 = WMD?
Hyperbole gets you nowhere.
So, you'll then agree that the 1st amendment does not cover cable TV news networks and the 4th amendment does not cover your cell phone conversations.When the founders wrote the constitution, the weapons of the day were muzzle loading flintlock muskets, not machine guns or rapid fire semiautomatics.
"Lawmakers don't get to amend the Constitution or take away rights because some people think that itis "reasonable" to do so."
Lawmakers have been whittling away at just about every right we have. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different?
That being the case, it is very difficult to take you seriously.I was being serious calling a AR15 a WMD.
An AR-15 is an effective choice for any legitimate use you might have for a firearm - anyone who claims that the AR isn't good for much other than killing doesnt know what he's talking about.It is made for killing and isn't much good for anything else.
Not a surprise.I don't believe anybody has died from listening to Fox news or CNN or from having their cell phone conversations overheard, so I don't see how that compares.
Take a look at the core of the argument.
If it applies to one amendment, it then applies to them all.