What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,791
Reaction score
27,423
Points
2,250
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


No...it wasn't....the 2nd Amendment as the first, speaks to individual, not collective Rights...you moron.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,198
Reaction score
2,500
Points
325
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
As I just pointed out shotguns can put as much lead in the air as so-called assault weapons. Not that there has ever any large conscious on just what an assault weapon is exactly.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,791
Reaction score
27,423
Points
2,250
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
As I just pointed out shotguns can put as much lead in the air as so-called assault weapons. Not that there has ever any large conscious on just what an assault weapon is exactly.

Not that there has ever any large conscious on just what an assault weapon is exactly.


Allow me.....

Assault Rifle:

A combination of two words placed together to create fear among uninformed Americans, so that those uninformed Americans can be stampeded into granting anti-gun extremists the power to ban and confiscate any gun those same extremists call "Assault Weapons."
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,871
Reaction score
7,369
Points
290
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,871
Reaction score
7,369
Points
290
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.
Bullshit. When the shooter has to reload he is vulnerable. If he's dropping a mag and slamming in a new 30 round mag, that vulnerable time is a blink of an eye.

In Parkland (and others) people tried to rush the shooter during reload and physically overpower them and got BLASTED because the shooter was able to reload so quickly.

In Vegas 500 people got shot before that crowd could disburse because there was virtually no pause to reload and of course an assault weapon has an effective range of 300 meters (actually more but less accurate). Obviously pistols ad shot guns have no where near that range or power.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
30,295
Reaction score
12,233
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment
The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Fuck the left.

"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." The USA did not have a standing army when the Second Amendment was written. Militias were necessity, just as the Amendment says.

Why do you think there was a qualifier? They could have just said "The right of the people" and you would be correct. But the reason for the right, was qualified.

The Military Act of 1903 ended militias in the USA, and militias were no longer "necessary". So if the right to bear arms is conditional upon the militias being necessary, the Second Amendment should have been repealed when the Military Act of 1903 was passed, ending militias in the country.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,198
Reaction score
2,500
Points
325
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.
Bullshit. When the shooter has to reload he is vulnerable. If he's dropping a mag and slamming in a new 30 round mag, that vulnerable time is a blink of an eye.

In Parkland (and others) people tried to rush the shooter during reload and physically overpower them and got BLASTED because the shooter was able to reload so quickly.

In Vegas 500 people got shot before that crowd could disburse because there was virtually no pause to reload and of course an assault weapon has an effective range of 300 meters (actually more but less accurate). Obviously pistols ad shot guns have no where near that range or power.
Are you going to respond to my post #714 or are you going to concede that you don't know what you're talking about? Shotguns, handguns, and pretty much any weapons are as much "weapons of war" as any other. In reality none are more deadly than any other except in certain situations. All will kill equally dead in the hands of someone with intent to kill. Bolt action "hunting rifle" in Vietnam:
1618756096231.png
The faster a person fires the quicker they run out of ammo and changing magazines doesn't help when they are empty.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,198
Reaction score
2,500
Points
325
The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Fuck the left.

"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." The USA did not have a standing army when the Second Amendment was written. Militias were necessity, just as the Amendment says.

Why do you think there was a qualifier? They could have just said "The right of the people" and you would be correct. But the reason for the right, was qualified.

The Military Act of 1903 ended militias in the USA, and militias were no longer "necessary". So if the right to bear arms is conditional upon the militias being necessary, the Second Amendment should have been repealed when the Military Act of 1903 was passed, ending militias in the country.
Somebody say that being necessary for the security free State was the only reason for militias?
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,790
Reaction score
17,748
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,871
Reaction score
7,369
Points
290
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,871
Reaction score
7,369
Points
290
The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Fuck the left.

"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." The USA did not have a standing army when the Second Amendment was written. Militias were necessity, just as the Amendment says.

Why do you think there was a qualifier? They could have just said "The right of the people" and you would be correct. But the reason for the right, was qualified.

The Military Act of 1903 ended militias in the USA, and militias were no longer "necessary". So if the right to bear arms is conditional upon the militias being necessary, the Second Amendment should have been repealed when the Military Act of 1903 was passed, ending militias in the country.
Somebody say that being necessary for the security free State was the only reason for militias?
That was the only reason given by the Constitution
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,790
Reaction score
17,748
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
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
The Heller Court concerned solely the regulation of handguns – not long guns.

In theory, per Heller, a jurisdiction could ban the possession of bolt-action rifles and shotguns – not that it would happen, of course.

The lower courts have upheld state bans on AR 15s, citing that the states have a legitimate interest in promoting public safety.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,790
Reaction score
17,748
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,198
Reaction score
2,500
Points
325
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,075
Reaction score
3,699
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
It applies to the federal Government not the States.

Right wingers need to remember their own propaganda: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The Federalist Number 45
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,198
Reaction score
2,500
Points
325
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
It applies to the federal Government not the States.

Right wingers need to remember their own propaganda: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The Federalist Number 45
It is a matter of the rights of the people as opposed to the authority of government to limit/abolish those rights. "Government" means all government to include local county State and/or Federal.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,075
Reaction score
3,699
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
It applies to the federal Government not the States.

Right wingers need to remember their own propaganda: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The Federalist Number 45
It is a matter of the rights of the people as opposed to the authority of government to limit/abolish those rights. "Government" means all government to include local county State and/or Federal.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,198
Reaction score
2,500
Points
325
Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense
Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’
Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated
And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.
"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.
It applies to the federal Government not the States.

Right wingers need to remember their own propaganda: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The Federalist Number 45
It is a matter of the rights of the people as opposed to the authority of government to limit/abolish those rights. "Government" means all government to include local county State and/or Federal.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Which doesn't apply to the unorganized militia (everybody else).
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,832
Reaction score
2,529
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.

Wrong.
The notion of "collective rights" is just so wrong it is silly.
The claim of "collective rights" is that there are rights that can not be reduced down to the level of individuals, and that can not exist.
Rights are the abstraction of what is inherently due to each individual by virtue of being a human being.
Collections of people are then just summations of individual rights into collective authority, not rights.
That is because immediately when you have a group of people, there will be some conflict between their individual inherent rights that requires compromises to rights.
The not only reduces rights to solutions that resolve conflict, but then those solutions also are arbitrary.
While rights are inherent and somewhat immutable, the conflict resolutions are just one of many possible alternatives.

The SCOTUS has often been wrong and has a long history of being totally wrong in the past, like the Dred Scott decision. They are getting better, but it is every slow, and their idea of collective rights was always absurdly obsolete.
It does back to when all authority was arbitrary because it was thought to be divine right.

Defense is not a collective right.
The authority to have an organized militia for national defense comes directly from each individual have their own inherent right of defense.
The collective is simply a summation of all those individual rights, and therefore is not a right itself, but just the authority derived from all the individuals delegating their individual rights of defense.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,832
Reaction score
2,529
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.

Correct, but if you look at the Miller SCOTUS ruling, they ruled against the sawed off shotgun because it was NOT a weapon with a common military purpose. With the Miller ruling, the SCOTUS was claiming only weapons of military use were protected. It was nothing to do with collective vs individual, as that is really a silly argument.
There can never be anything like a "collective right". At most one could refer to the result of a summation of individual rights, but that itself would not a right, because a summation introduces compromises.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$400.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top