Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Lesh]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

 

[2aguy]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

 

[Rigby5]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

 

[AntonToo]

Every year, 115,551 people are shot. 38,826 people die from gun violence. 14,062 are murdered. 76,725 people survive gunshot injuries.

Illicit drug use is – directly and indirectly – responsible for over 750,000 deaths per year.

Do you know what the word ILLICIT means? It means illegal dummy.

Try again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The collective right argument held that certain firearms should be the sole purview of the military, such as a state’s national guard – firearms such as the AR 15; banning AR 15s and like rifles and carbines would be Constitutional under the collective right interpretation.

Just the opposite. Going back to the minutemen. The very idea was for the militia to be familiar with the weapons used in war. In fact the minutemen were required to be so equipped with them.

So as a collective right, you could not prohibit those in the militia ie. able bodied men (and by extension women too) from owning them.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

Collective rights can not possibly exist without individual rights existing first.
The authority of the government to have a militia, organized or not, comes from the right of defense of individuals.
Collective rights can't create a right that does not already exist before people create the collective mechanism.

If something is not an individual right but could be under state authority, so you want a federal prohibition so that it stays under state authority, that would better called a collective restriction against federal infringement, not a collective right. State jurisdiction is not a right, it is delegated authority that comes from individuals, and only individuals can EVER have any rights what so ever.

The fact we do then want states to restrict inherent individual rights to some degree is to be expected, with all rights.
No right can ever be unbounded because all rights need restrictions so that they do not collide and infringe upon the rights of other individuals. But it is NEVER a question of states rights, as states to not and never can have rights, since they are artificially constructed, and rights have to emanate from something permanent. To consider states to have rights would imply they existed before the state was even created, and that is not possible.

Ignorant nonsense.

Clearly you don't understand the topic; you’ve not read the current case law and commentaries – or if you have, you failed to comprehend what you read.

 

[2aguy]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

And the AR gets more press because the anti-gun extremists think they can use it to scare uninformed Americans........It gets a reputation it doesn't deserve and then mental cases gravitate to it .......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The collective right argument held that certain firearms should be the sole purview of the military, such as a state’s national guard – firearms such as the AR 15; banning AR 15s and like rifles and carbines would be Constitutional under the collective right interpretation.

Just the opposite. Going back to the minutemen. The very idea was for the militia to be familiar with the weapons used in war. In fact the minutemen were required to be so equipped with them.

So as a collective right, you could not prohibit those in the militia ie. able bodied men (and by extension women too) from owning them.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

Wrong.
While it is possible some people may not be qualified for owning weapons at all, their lack or service in the militia has nothing to do with it and can't have anything to do with it, since self defense is the main right involved, not the secondary one of defending the state.
Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.
While some people may not be qualified for owning any weapons, attempting to ban all people from ARs clearly would be illegal, as it really is just one of the least expensive rifles available for its quality.

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

Prior to Heller, the debate concerned whether the Second Amendment right was a collective right based on militia service, or an individual right based on the right of self-defense.

The Second Amendment right can be only one or the other – not both.

The Heller Court ruled that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service.

Had the Court ruled in favor of the collective right, the Federal government and state and local governments would be at liberty to ban all manner of weapons – both handguns and AR 15s.

Under the collective right, the Second Amendment would protect only a state’s right to maintain its national guard, and that firearms should be the sole purview of the state’s national guard; state residents not part of the state’s national guard could therefore be prohibited from possessing AR 15s.

And yet again: that’s why the Heller Court ruled in favor of the individual right, to preempt the District (and later the states and local jurisdictions per McDonald) from prohibiting the possession of firearms as they would otherwise be authorized to do pursuant to the collective right.

 

[Lesh]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

Jesus dude. At least have some idea what you are talking about. Vegas WAS an AR .
And a pump shotgun without a detachable mag holds only six shots and has to be reloaded shell by shell

 

[Lesh]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

 

[2aguy]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

Jesus dude. At least have some idea what you are talking about. Vegas WAS an AR .
And a pump shotgun without a detachable mag holds only six shots and has to be reloaded shell by shell

The AR doesn't matter in mass public shootings...except for one, Vegas, where he was firing over a couple of hundred yards away from the victims. The only reason he was effective, though, was due to the fact he was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people who didn't hear his initial shots because it was a music concert......and they were tightly packed and had to crowd the exits to escape.

Had he used that rifle at the same distance against people on the street, he would have been unable to inflict that number of murders....since once people realized they were under fire they would have run away.....becoming almost impossible to hit at that range, or they would have taken cover.

The weapon in a mass public shooter doesn't determine the number of people killed....as I have already shown in other posts.....a 5 shot, pump action shotgun in Kerch, Russia, killed 20 and wounded 70...the AR-15 in Boulder killed 10.

The factor that matters in a mass public shooting? The target is a gun free zone.

Then, the other factor? How soon before someone with a gun shoots back at the attacker.

This is important because in a mass public shooting, when the attacker faces an armed citizen or cop, they commit suicide, surrender, or run away.....and they almost immediately are forced to stop killing people....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly..

No...they don't, as you have been shown over and over again.......the weapon doesn't matter, the fact that they pick gun free zones is the biggest factor...the second factor is how soon someone shoots back at the attacker....

Kerch, Russia.....5 shot, pump action shotgun....with the local police station 100 yards from the school....20 killed, 70 injured.

Boulder....AR-15,10 killed.

Luby's cafe.... 2, 9 mm pistols....24 killed.

Virginia Tech....1, 9mm pistol, 1, .22 pistol with a 10 round magazine...32 killed


The weapon doesn't matter at the range of a mass public shooting...

 

[2aguy]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.

 

[Lesh]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.

As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does not

 

[9thIDdoc]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

Jesus dude. At least have some idea what you are talking about. Vegas WAS an AR .
And a pump shotgun without a detachable mag holds only six shots and has to be reloaded shell by shell

"Deadliness" of weapons is very much dependent on the circumstances under which they are used. Shotguns are slower to reload but each shell fired may discharge nine 00buck shot. Six shots = 54 projectiles downrange as opposed to the 30 rounds loaded in an AR mag. In Vietnam our pointmen (who walked in front of everyone else) seemed to greatly favor a pump shotgun over the M-16. At closer ranges there are few if any deadlier weapons. They (along with simi-auto shotguns) are probably the most numerous weapon in America and are iconic hunting weapons. They are not assault rifles. And are one reason trying to rid the world of assault rifles is a fool's errand.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.

As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does not

If that is your reasoning, using Miller, a machine gun should be protected, because that is something that would be quite useful in a militia (as opposed to the sawed-off shotgun Miller had).

 

[Lesh]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

Jesus dude. At least have some idea what you are talking about. Vegas WAS an AR .
And a pump shotgun without a detachable mag holds only six shots and has to be reloaded shell by shell

"Deadliness" of weapons is very much dependent on the circumstances under which they are used. Shotguns are slower to reload but each shell fired may discharge nine 00buck shot. Six shots = 54 projectiles downrange as opposed to the 30 rounds loaded in an AR mag. In Vietnam our pointmen (who walked in front of everyone else) seemed to greatly favor a pump shotgun over the M-16. At closer ranges there are few if any deadlier weapons. They (along with simi-auto shotguns) are probably the most numerous weapon in America and are iconic hunting weapons. They are not assault rifles. And are one reason trying to rid the world of assault rifles is a fool's errand.

More than anything else it is the ability to pump out an almost unending amount of lead that makes Assault Weapons so dangerous. Empty a 30 round make into a large number of bodies and pop in a new one with almost no lag.
Reloading a shotgun shell by shell takes time, making the shooter vulnerable

 

[Lesh]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.

As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does not

If that is your reasoning, using Miller, a machine gun should be protected, because that is something that would be quite useful in a militia (as opposed to the sawed-off shotgun Miller had).

That was the reasoning in Miller. Until Scalia’s judicial activism the 2A was always considered within the construct of the militia

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.

As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does not

If that is your reasoning, using Miller, a machine gun should be protected, because that is something that would be quite useful in a militia (as opposed to the sawed-off shotgun Miller had).

That was the reasoning in Miller. Until Scalia’s judicial activism the 2A was always considered within the construct of the militia

I don't disagree with you on Scalia creating a draconian shitstorm. What he SHOULD have done is CORRECTLY interpret the 2A to be nothing more than a ban on Federal authority, SPECIFICALLY reserving that authority to the States, and struck down all Fed gun laws.

He was too chicken shit to do the right thing.

A militia needs to have military weapons to function properly. That includes all weapons a soldier would be expected to carry.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

Jesus dude. At least have some idea what you are talking about. Vegas WAS an AR .
And a pump shotgun without a detachable mag holds only six shots and has to be reloaded shell by shell

"Deadliness" of weapons is very much dependent on the circumstances under which they are used. Shotguns are slower to reload but each shell fired may discharge nine 00buck shot. Six shots = 54 projectiles downrange as opposed to the 30 rounds loaded in an AR mag. In Vietnam our pointmen (who walked in front of everyone else) seemed to greatly favor a pump shotgun over the M-16. At closer ranges there are few if any deadlier weapons. They (along with simi-auto shotguns) are probably the most numerous weapon in America and are iconic hunting weapons. They are not assault rifles. And are one reason trying to rid the world of assault rifles is a fool's errand.

More than anything else it is the ability to pump out an almost unending amount of lead that makes Assault Weapons so dangerous. Empty a 30 round make into a large number of bodies and pop in a new one with almost no lag.
Reloading a shotgun shell by shell takes time, making the shooter vulnerable

Reloading a shotgun is not a problem at all when NOBODY other than the guy holding the shotgun is armed.

 

[2aguy]

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....

The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.

And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....

9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

CAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? Yes
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.

As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does not

Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.

The dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagree

Wrong.

First of all the Vegas shooting was not an AR, but a full auto M-4.
Second is that there are many more deadly weapons that will always be legal, like a person can kill far more with just a pair of Glock 21 pistols.
Even a pump shotgun is more deadly than an AR.
The fact ARs are so commonly used is not because they are more deadly but just because they are more common.

Jesus dude. At least have some idea what you are talking about. Vegas WAS an AR .
And a pump shotgun without a detachable mag holds only six shots and has to be reloaded shell by shell

"Deadliness" of weapons is very much dependent on the circumstances under which they are used. Shotguns are slower to reload but each shell fired may discharge nine 00buck shot. Six shots = 54 projectiles downrange as opposed to the 30 rounds loaded in an AR mag. In Vietnam our pointmen (who walked in front of everyone else) seemed to greatly favor a pump shotgun over the M-16. At closer ranges there are few if any deadlier weapons. They (along with simi-auto shotguns) are probably the most numerous weapon in America and are iconic hunting weapons. They are not assault rifles. And are one reason trying to rid the world of assault rifles is a fool's errand.

More than anything else it is the ability to pump out an almost unending amount of lead that makes Assault Weapons so dangerous. Empty a 30 round make into a large number of bodies and pop in a new one with almost no lag.
Reloading a shotgun shell by shell takes time, making the shooter vulnerable

And yet.....you don't know what you are talking about....

At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



Boulder, rifle 10 killed



A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...



A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....





9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...



2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....



double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....



That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.