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.
So Yellow Cabs in NYC fall into the dangerous category as they were responsible for multiple deaths this week. So we should ban Yellow Cabs? Yeah, I know, it is a stupid thought. Like your thoughts that all semi autos should be banned. It ain't the tool--the problem is the person who uses it.This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
The test is whether a weapon is ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual’ – pickup trucks are neither dangerous nor unusual, how common they are is therefore irrelevant.
Rather, the question shouldn’t be limited to just AR 15s, but all semi-auto rifles and carbines – the many Kalashnikov variants, FN SCAR 16s and 17s, FN FALs, HK 91s other roller-delayed blowback firearms, M1As, Galils, Czech vz 58s, just to name a few.
Indeed, there are at least another 20 million non-AR platform firearms in the United States.
Consequently, with that many semi-automatic rifles and carbines with 20- or 30-round detachable magazines possessed by private citizens, such weapons are clearly ‘in common use’ and should fall within the scope of Second Amendment protections.
This concept is explained in the case the Supreme Court used to form its reasoning in US v Miller and where the Court drew its language in Miller's famous paragraph:
"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence.
Everything is the person and not the tool. Which is why with other tools, the government makes you prove you can handle the tool safely before they let you have one.Like your thoughts that all semi autos should be banned. It ain't the tool--the problem is the person who uses it.
And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.
Alito addressed the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument in Caetano v Massachusetts......
You have to realize that Miller took the first clause of the 2nd amendment to heart, where Heller totally threw it under the bus. So the reasoning in Miller is no longer valid once they decided Heller.Heller threw out "common denence", and kept "unusual".
Where the fuck do you get this shit? Do you just believe everything some guy in a black robe feeds you?The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use firearms "in common use" for traditionally lawful purposes.
This contrasts with "dangeroun and unusual" weapons, which are not so protected.
A firearm is deadly. Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly. Perhaps something that steals the soul? Or perhaps idiocy?And thus, the "dangerous" in the term "dangerous and unusual" must be in excess of that commonly attached to a firearm.
I'll overlook the use of the word clip because your heart is in the right placeSo a bigger clip makes an AR more dangerous? Buddy, a bolt action rifle can have just as big of a clip...
That doesn't tell us anything about what government's powers might be to regulate guns . . . True, the dangerousness of gun is not really in dispute, but "dangerousness" alone is not the only criteria for hearing government's plea to be afforded a power to restrict an arm's possession and use.
Here is a short primer on "dangerous and unusual" . . .
The first thing to understand is the government doesn't get to begin the conversation demanding a power by claiming, "this gun is dangerous and unusual", and suddenly the citizen must defend his right to possess and use that type of arm.
The determination that a type of arm is "dangerous and unusual" is what remains after the protection criteria is applied and the type of arm fails all of them.
The Supreme Court has established a multi-pronged "test" to find out if a type of arm is beyond the reach of government (AKA, "protected" by the 2nd Amendment).
The arm must be of a type that is, part of the ordinary military equipment / usual in civilized warfare and/or if its use could contribute to the common defense or simply, is of a type in common use by the citizens. SCOTUS in Heller and Caetano clarified also that the 2nd Amendment's protection "extends . . . to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding".
If a gun meets any of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force, (in Heller, the Court only used one, the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes). If the type of arm FAILS all those tests, then it could be deemed, "dangerous and unusual" and government could legitimately be afforded a power to restrict its possession and use by citizens.
That "dangerous and unusual" arms have, historically and traditionally been restricted is the origination for Heller's statement that, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . . [it is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
Again, dangerousness alone is not a criteria to permit restrictions. The arm must also be unusual but unusual does not refer to say, unconventional looks or "style". It actually means, "not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense".
This concept is explained in the case the Supreme Court used to form its reasoning in US v Miller and where the Court drew its language in Miller's famous paragraph:
"A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence."
So, when "dangerous and unusual" is stated as a criteria for justifying a government restricting the citizen's possession and use of a certain, specific type of arm, understand that before that term can even be considered, the arm must have failed all the protection criteria.
In the end, the term must be understood to mean and read as describing a specific type of arm that is, dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which is not usual in civilized warfare or otherwise would be of little use in war or self defense.
Are you completely incapable of reading the words yourself?
Tench Coxe:
It could be a weapon that only targets Minorities or Alternative lifestyle peopleA firearm is deadly. Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly. Perhaps something that steals the soul? Or perhaps idiocy?
"The AR is sexier though". Really? An instrument of death is "sexy"?
Steve McQueen tooYes. Yes it is. So are Tigers. So are knives. So are Vipers. So are women.
To each his own. OK.Yes. Yes it is. So are Tigers. So are knives. So are Vipers. So are women.
The right exists whether or not there's a 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?Do you think the right emanates from those words?
You deny that the Justice writing a majority opinion of the Supreme Court has the power to declare what the Constitution is, but you think Tench Coxe does?
You can disagree, it just makes you wrong.Where the fuck do you get this shit? Do you just believe everything some guy in a black robe feeds you?
It lies somwhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.A firearm is deadly. Please explain the next level of dangerous after deadly.
Yep... We can always count on the gun controllers to jump to nuclear weapons. You just prove that you are no less of a gun controller than the other leftists.It lies somwhere between firearms and nuclear weapons.
