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

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,762
Reaction score
7,252
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


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.


Nope.....in Friedman, Thomas and Scalia, who both were on the majority in Heller, stated that promoting public safety does not allow you to prohibit weapons that are in common use........
Based on personal preference. Not anything written in the Constitution
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,182
Reaction score
2,480
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).
How did you reach your conclusion? Are you on the right-wing? All persons within the State, seems pretty clear.


militia Definition of MILITIA
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

mi·li·tia | \ mə-ˈli-shə \
plural militias
Definition of militia

1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyThe militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideologyspecifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive

The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.

A militia (/mɪˈlɪʃə/) is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel or (historically) to members of ...
State defense force - Wikipedia

We don't have state militias anymore.
Whether we do or not is beside the point. The main point is that we have a Right to have them. I know of militias that claim to be State militias although I don't know-or care especially-if that is true or not. State militias are only one of several types of militias anyway.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,570
Reaction score
5,635
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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


The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....weapons of war have select fire capabilities, the AR-15 does not.....it is simply nothing more than a regular rifle.

Since you are an idiot, I will explain it so that an idiot like you can understand it...

You have a smart car, and it's engine.

You have a Formula One racing car body...no engine.

If you take the smart car engine, and put it in the Formula One racing care body.....you do not have a Formula One racing car...

The AR-15 has the same body as an M4 ...which is an actual military weapon....but the engine of the AR-15 is not the same as the M4


The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it has not been used by our military......
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


The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....weapons of war have select fire capabilities, the AR-15 does not.....it is simply nothing more than a regular rifle.

Since you are an idiot, I will explain it so that an idiot like you can understand it...

You have a smart car, and it's engine.

You have a Formula One racing car body...no engine.

If you take the smart car engine, and put it in the Formula One racing care body.....you do not have a Formula One racing car...

The AR-15 has the same body as an M4 ...which is an actual military weapon....but the engine of the AR-15 is not the same as the M4


The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it has not been used by our military......

And no, you don't get to take all the guns you want as long as you leave a few crumbs...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.

This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
But nothing in that indicates an AR-15 CANNOT be banned. The govt DOES have a power to make laws to make people safer. And in rural Kan a person faces more coyote type damage than in .... say southside Chi.

But imo rational people have to agree that the vast vast maj of gun deaths come from NON-AR-15 like weapons. And very very few people who own AR-15 weapons kill anyone, let alone kill them with an AR-15. But AR-15 type weapons have a much higher incidence in mass killings. So, how can govt not "infringe" on the right to own a weapon, even an AR-15, while also making it harder for someone else to committ a mass killing?

JMO but background checks and inexpensive storage locks for AR-15s aren't really objectionable, but if you're driving your pickup in rural SD checking on cattle, you might want your AR-15 stowed muzzle down near at hand.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,570
Reaction score
5,635
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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).
How did you reach your conclusion? Are you on the right-wing? All persons within the State, seems pretty clear.


militia Definition of MILITIA
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

mi·li·tia | \ mə-ˈli-shə \
plural militias
Definition of militia

1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyThe militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideologyspecifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive

The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.

A militia (/mɪˈlɪʃə/) is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel or (historically) to members of ...
State defense force - Wikipedia

We don't have state militias anymore.
Whether we do or not is beside the point. The main point is that we have a Right to have them. I know of militias that claim to be State militias although I don't know-or care especially-if that is true or not. State militias are only one of several types of militias anyway.
No. The militia clause only referred to state regulated militias. And they no longer exist ... except for the state defense forces that really don't have a defense against an invasion role

If anyone is telling you the militia clause is even an issue, they are full of shit and just pushing an agenda for their own benefit. You have a right to own a gun of your choice. That's not even debatable.
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
44,517
Reaction score
17,857
Points
2,290
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
The left has to get a foot in the door. Any idiot (liberal) knows that getting where all weapons are illegal would be impossible with a broadbrush law..
They also know that if they can get one of the common weapons deemed illegal, the rest would be illegal in given time. The Domino Effect.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,756
Reaction score
27,375
Points
2,250
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


The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....weapons of war have select fire capabilities, the AR-15 does not.....it is simply nothing more than a regular rifle.

Since you are an idiot, I will explain it so that an idiot like you can understand it...

You have a smart car, and it's engine.

You have a Formula One racing car body...no engine.

If you take the smart car engine, and put it in the Formula One racing care body.....you do not have a Formula One racing car...

The AR-15 has the same body as an M4 ...which is an actual military weapon....but the engine of the AR-15 is not the same as the M4


The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it has not been used by our military......
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


The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....weapons of war have select fire capabilities, the AR-15 does not.....it is simply nothing more than a regular rifle.

Since you are an idiot, I will explain it so that an idiot like you can understand it...

You have a smart car, and it's engine.

You have a Formula One racing car body...no engine.

If you take the smart car engine, and put it in the Formula One racing care body.....you do not have a Formula One racing car...

The AR-15 has the same body as an M4 ...which is an actual military weapon....but the engine of the AR-15 is not the same as the M4


The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it has not been used by our military......

And no, you don't get to take all the guns you want as long as you leave a few crumbs...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.

This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
But nothing in that indicates an AR-15 CANNOT be banned. The govt DOES have a power to make laws to make people safer. And in rural Kan a person faces more coyote type damage than in .... say southside Chi.

But imo rational people have to agree that the vast vast maj of gun deaths come from NON-AR-15 like weapons. And very very few people who own AR-15 weapons kill anyone, let alone kill them with an AR-15. But AR-15 type weapons have a much higher incidence in mass killings. So, how can govt not "infringe" on the right to own a weapon, even an AR-15, while also making it harder for someone else to committ a mass killing?

JMO but background checks and inexpensive storage locks for AR-15s aren't really objectionable, but if you're driving your pickup in rural SD checking on cattle, you might want your AR-15 stowed muzzle down near at hand.


Yes....Heller, and Caetano, Miller and Friedman all state they can't be banned.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't know the actual issues..

The call for "universal background checks," by anti-gunners has nothing to do with stopping criminals...you would know that if you understood the issue. They want UBCs in order to demand gun registration......which they need to ban and confiscate guns....which you would know if you knew the issue.

Heller also said that mandatory locks are unConstitutional...
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,756
Reaction score
27,375
Points
2,250
The left has to get a foot in the door. Any idiot (liberal) knows that getting where all weapons are illegal would be impossible with a broadbrush law..
They also know that if they can get one of the common weapons deemed illegal, the rest would be illegal in given time. The Domino Effect.


Which is why they are so hard on for the AR-15 rifle. They know that uninformed Americans have no idea that the AR-15 is just a normal rifle.......but if they can be stampeded into giving democrats the power to ban it......then the democrats can come back and say....the AR-15 operates the same way as every other semi-automatic rifle, pistol and shotgun....since you allowed us to ban the AR-15, you now have to let us ban all those other guns too.....
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,762
Reaction score
7,252
Points
290
So the claim is now that an AR is no different from a shotgun or handgun?

Could either of those done the damage that am AR did in Vegas?

Nope
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,512
Reaction score
2,398
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.


Nope.....in Friedman, Thomas and Scalia, who both were on the majority in Heller, stated that promoting public safety does not allow you to prohibit weapons that are in common use........
Based on personal preference. Not anything written in the Constitution

Nothing written in the Constitution prohibits some state or local restrictions on weapons, but clearly all federal restrictions are totally and completely banned.

The words "shall not be infringed" does not allow for any federal restrictions at all, in any way.
There could be lots of reasonable local infringements, like only over 18, only at home, only unloaded in public, no machine guns, etc.
Any law is an infringement, but some local infringement is reasonable.
Any federal law is not reasonable.
Clearly what is needed in Alaska is up to Alaskans and not New Yorkers.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,512
Reaction score
2,398
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
So the claim is now that an AR is no different from a shotgun or handgun?

Could either of those done the damage that am AR did in Vegas?

Nope

Wrong.
First of all, the damage in Vegas was not from an AR, but a bump stock that greatly increase rate of fire.
And that could easily be applied to a larger Winchester or Remington hunting rifle.
The AR had nothing to do with it, and an AR normally is no more damaging than a pair of pistols or shotgun.
There is nothing unique to an AR.
Lots of rifles use that same caliber, and there ARs, like the AR-10 or AR-18 that use the larger .308 common hunting caliber.
So focusing on ARs is ignorant and silly.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,756
Reaction score
27,375
Points
2,250
So the claim is now that an AR is no different from a shotgun or handgun?

Could either of those done the damage that am AR did in Vegas?

Nope


Its not......it is no different.......well....it can shoot farther, but that is because it is a rifle......while the shotgun and pistol have shorter rangers...but in the context of a mass public shooting it doesn't matter since the ranges are under 50 yards, except for one shooting, the one in vegas.

The shooting in Vegas was at the extreme range of over 200 yards...and even then, the only reason there were so many killed was the fact that he was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people........had they not been trapped in the concert area, they would have been able to run away or seek cover......if he had had to shoot at moving targets at over 200 yards, he wouldn't have hit even half the people he did......

But the AR-15 rifle is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun, especially in the context of a mass public shooting...

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 he not had that crowd 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 had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,756
Reaction score
27,375
Points
2,250
So the claim is now that an AR is no different from a shotgun or handgun?

Could either of those done the damage that am AR did in Vegas?

Nope


It isn't a claim, it is the truth. You guys are making the false claims, not us.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,756
Reaction score
27,375
Points
2,250
So the claim is now that an AR is no different from a shotgun or handgun?

Could either of those done the damage that am AR did in Vegas?

Nope

Wrong.
First of all, the damage in Vegas was not from an AR, but a bump stock that greatly increase rate of fire.
And that could easily be applied to a larger Winchester or Remington hunting rifle.
The AR had nothing to do with it, and an AR normally is no more damaging than a pair of pistols or shotgun.
There is nothing unique to an AR.
Lots of rifles use that same caliber, and there ARs, like the AR-10 or AR-18 that use the larger .308 common hunting caliber.
So focusing on ARs is ignorant and silly.


The bump stock actually worked to keep more people alive. The bump stock forced the muzzle of the rifle up....sending bullets over the crowd and into the empty field on the other side of the concert....

Had he fired without it...he would have killed even more people.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,512
Reaction score
2,398
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
So the claim is now that an AR is no different from a shotgun or handgun?

Could either of those done the damage that am AR did in Vegas?

Nope

Wrong.
First of all, the damage in Vegas was not from an AR, but a bump stock that greatly increase rate of fire.
And that could easily be applied to a larger Winchester or Remington hunting rifle.
The AR had nothing to do with it, and an AR normally is no more damaging than a pair of pistols or shotgun.
There is nothing unique to an AR.
Lots of rifles use that same caliber, and there ARs, like the AR-10 or AR-18 that use the larger .308 common hunting caliber.
So focusing on ARs is ignorant and silly.


The bump stock actually worked to keep more people alive. The bump stock forced the muzzle of the rifle up....sending bullets over the crowd and into the empty field on the other side of the concert....

Had he fired without it...he would have killed even more people.

Well the bump stock is really silly and makes it impossible to aim.
I never fired either, but both would seem to make it very difficult to aim at anything smaller than mass concert crowd.
So the idea of needing bans is ridiculous.
Paddock could easily have killed far more by modifying fireworks into a home made mortars, with gun powder charges and BBs for shrapnel.
In fact, he could have used gasoline in the impact projectiles.
Or he could have used toxic poisons.
There really is no longer any way to limit the range of available technology that can kill if abused.
One person even made a deadly nuclear reaction just by salvaging thousands of smoke detectors.
The idea you can legislate harmlessness, is way beyond impossible any more.
 
Last edited:

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,570
Reaction score
5,635
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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.


Nope.....in Friedman, Thomas and Scalia, who both were on the majority in Heller, stated that promoting public safety does not allow you to prohibit weapons that are in common use........
Based on personal preference. Not anything written in the Constitution

Nothing written in the Constitution prohibits some state or local restrictions on weapons, but clearly all federal restrictions are totally and completely banned.

The words "shall not be infringed" does not allow for any federal restrictions at all, in any way.
There could be lots of reasonable local infringements, like only over 18, only at home, only unloaded in public, no machine guns, etc.
Any law is an infringement, but some local infringement is reasonable.
Any federal law is not reasonable.
Clearly what is needed in Alaska is up to Alaskans and not New Yorkers.
The SC and pretty much every seriously taken constitutional expert disagrees. But the reality is that no matter what regulation the govt can propose to AR-15 like weapons, the regulation cannot just "ban" one class of weapons becuase that would be pretty ineffective in curbing some crimes.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,512
Reaction score
2,398
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
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.


Nope.....in Friedman, Thomas and Scalia, who both were on the majority in Heller, stated that promoting public safety does not allow you to prohibit weapons that are in common use........
Based on personal preference. Not anything written in the Constitution

Nothing written in the Constitution prohibits some state or local restrictions on weapons, but clearly all federal restrictions are totally and completely banned.

The words "shall not be infringed" does not allow for any federal restrictions at all, in any way.
There could be lots of reasonable local infringements, like only over 18, only at home, only unloaded in public, no machine guns, etc.
Any law is an infringement, but some local infringement is reasonable.
Any federal law is not reasonable.
Clearly what is needed in Alaska is up to Alaskans and not New Yorkers.
The SC and pretty much every seriously taken constitutional expert disagrees. But the reality is that no matter what regulation the govt can propose to AR-15 like weapons, the regulation cannot just "ban" one class of weapons becuase that would be pretty ineffective in curbing some crimes.

Yes I realized the majority of the so called experts disagree with me, but the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal jurisdiction.
The fact the states wanted control over the militia was obvious, in that the wording in the constitution was for the federal government to be able to call up the state militias when needed, not that the federal government would have its own standing army.
So a total prohibition of federal weapons jurisdiction is the only logical conclusion in the 2nd amendment.

The fact I also believe the states have very little authority to restrict weapons is a totally different argument.
State constitutions in general imply all adult males are the militia, and the 4th and 5th amendment references to the right of self defense, all tend to limit state weapons restrictions as well.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,182
Reaction score
2,480
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).
How did you reach your conclusion? Are you on the right-wing? All persons within the State, seems pretty clear.


militia Definition of MILITIA
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In

mi·li·tia | \ mə-ˈli-shə \
plural militias
Definition of militia

1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyThe militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideologyspecifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive

The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.

A militia (/mɪˈlɪʃə/) is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel or (historically) to members of ...
State defense force - Wikipedia

We don't have state militias anymore.
Whether we do or not is beside the point. The main point is that we have a Right to have them. I know of militias that claim to be State militias although I don't know-or care especially-if that is true or not. State militias are only one of several types of militias anyway.
No. The militia clause only referred to state regulated militias. And they no longer exist ... except for the state defense forces that really don't have a defense against an invasion role

If anyone is telling you the militia clause is even an issue, they are full of shit and just pushing an agenda for their own benefit. You have a right to own a gun of your choice. That's not even debatable.
No, we are in agreement about the 2nd Amendment and gun rights. You just remain confused as to what the term "militia" means.
 

antontoo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
18,856
Reaction score
3,256
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


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.


Nope.....in Friedman, Thomas and Scalia, who both were on the majority in Heller, stated that promoting public safety does not allow you to prohibit weapons that are in common use........
Based on personal preference. Not anything written in the Constitution

Nothing written in the Constitution prohibits some state or local restrictions on weapons, but clearly all federal restrictions are totally and completely banned.

The words "shall not be infringed" does not allow for any federal restrictions at all, in any way.
There could be lots of reasonable local infringements, like only over 18, only at home, only unloaded in public, no machine guns, etc.
Any law is an infringement, but some local infringement is reasonable.
Any federal law is not reasonable.
Clearly what is needed in Alaska is up to Alaskans and not New Yorkers.
The SC and pretty much every seriously taken constitutional expert disagrees. But the reality is that no matter what regulation the govt can propose to AR-15 like weapons, the regulation cannot just "ban" one class of weapons becuase that would be pretty ineffective in curbing some crimes.

Yes I realized the majority of the so called experts disagree with me, but the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal jurisdiction.

No it wasn't. Bill of Rights was in part a response to specific calls for Constitutional protections for personal liberties.

A state can't violate your constitutional rights and your opinion to the contrary is at odds with reality.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,512
Reaction score
2,398
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
To believe pistols are not more dangerous than ARs is mistaken.
Not only are pistols used in 98% of all murders, but also pistols can easily have a much higher rate of fire.
Anyone who wants to throw lots of lead, uses a machine pistol.
The Germans used the MP-38 in WWII, the US used the Greasegun, the Soviets used the PPKS, Israel has the Uzi, etc.
Everyone uses a machine pistol for short range, high rate of fire.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top