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

[Rigby5]

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

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

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

 

[Rigby5]

State constitutions in general imply all adult males are the militia

Without even questioning the premise, that sure seems to be a very poorly regulated militia.

State constitutions tend to go on about firearms training, marching, tactics, the calling up of militia for posses against criminals, etc.
Again, the word "regulated" means trained and functional, not restricted.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

 

[AntonToo]

State constitutions in general imply all adult males are the militia

Without even questioning the premise, that sure seems to be a very poorly regulated militia.

State constitutions tend to go on about firearms training, marching, tactics, the calling up of militia for posses against criminals, etc.
Again, the word "regulated" means trained and functional, not restricted.

Ok, trained and functional militia can have the assualt rifles. State wants to have a trained and functional militia? Sure.

That has nothing to do with Joe Shmoe walking into a store to get himself a bazooka.

 

[Lesh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

That’s your construct. SCOTUS rulings are always subject to reinterpretation

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

There are no constitutionally protected rights.
The point of the constitution was simply to divide jurisdiction between the federal government and all other governments.
What comes close to constitutional rights are those derived by implication, through the reasoning, "that is the federal government is prohibited from infringement, then likely so should states".

{...
In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2] These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3] Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.[4]
...}

It should be obvious the constitution can't created rights, because we already had to have individual rights in order to have a rebellion and to be able to write a constitution.

The rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government, and no right implies that it is or can be unbounded. Any level of government can restrict any right if necessary in order to defend the rights of others.
That does not diminish any right or give government any superior authority, because it comes about only through delegation of the authority of the rights of others being defended.

If you still do not understand, just ask yourself about the right of privacy.
It is probably about 3rd in importance, right after life and liberty.
But it is where to be found in the Constitution.
How can that be?
Because no rights are created by the Constitution, they have to already exist, so there is really no point in putting any rights into the Constitution.
That is NOT a source of rights.
So then why mention any rights in the Constitution at all?
Because all rights need some restrictions, and the point of the Bill of Rights was to say any restrictions on the rights listed could not be federal. Only state or local. That is the ONLY reason any rights are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, at all.

 

[AntonToo]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.

Statements like these make you sound like a total fucking idiot.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on pissing your pants publicly like this, but ok go right ahead.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.
The point of the constitution was simply to divide jurisdiction between the federal government and all other governments.

THIS

Pay attention, class. Rigby knows the fuck of which he speaks (perfect grammar)*.




*proper grammar for "he knows what the fuck he is talking about."

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

What is silly is that of course any right can be violated.
For example, capital punishment can violate the right to life.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.

Statements like these make you sound like a total fucking idiot.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on pissing your pants publicly like this, but ok go right ahead.

Who knew that being CORRECT makes one sound like an idiot?

 

[AntonToo]

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

That’s your construct. SCOTUS rulings are always subject to reinterpretation

No they are not. They are the final say to the case and niether you, nor anyone else has any power to re-interpret it.

 

[Rigby5]

State constitutions in general imply all adult males are the militia

Without even questioning the premise, that sure seems to be a very poorly regulated militia.

State constitutions tend to go on about firearms training, marching, tactics, the calling up of militia for posses against criminals, etc.
Again, the word "regulated" means trained and functional, not restricted.

Ok, trained and functional militia can have the assualt rifles. State wants to have a trained and functional militia? Sure.

That has nothing to do with Joe Shmoe walking into a store to get himself a bazooka.

Wrong.
Almost each state has said that their militia is every Joe Shmoe, and that they are supposed to arm and train themselves.
Go look up what each state says in their constitutions.
There is no limit.
That is obvious since back then there were not even any significant police, and there were numerous threats.
And with such a fascist federal government as we have now, the threats are even greater now.

 

[Rigby5]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.

Statements like these make you sound like a total fucking idiot.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on pissing your pants publicly like this, but ok go right ahead.

Obviously if there were constitutionally protected rights, that would end up as a dictatorship.
It would mean government created rights arbitrarily and could take them away just as easily, and that they were limited only to what was listed, which would eliminate most rights.

 

[AntonToo]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.

Statements like these make you sound like a total fucking idiot.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on pissing your pants publicly like this, but ok go right ahead.

Who knew that being CORRECT makes one sound like an idiot?

Oh look another idiot that doesn't know that the American Constitution protects certain personal rights.

 

[AntonToo]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.

Statements like these make you sound like a total fucking idiot.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on pissing your pants publicly like this, but ok go right ahead.

Obviously if there were constitutionally protected rights, that would end up as a dictatorship.

No moron, it wouldn't.

We have that, and we are not a dictatorship.

...Do you sniff glue as a hobby?

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

That’s your construct. SCOTUS rulings are always subject to reinterpretation

No they are not. They are the final say to the case and niether you, nor anyone else has any power to re-interpret it.

Wrong.
First of all, the SCOTUS makes mistakes, like the Dred Scott decision.
Second is that some rulings are deliberately narrow and stated as not being a precedent.
Third is that all SCOTUS ruling slowly reshape over time.
For example, the incorporation of additional rights as hinted at by the Bill of Rights did not all get assumed when the 14th amendment got passed.
It is a slow ongoing process of incorporation that the SCOTUS has been deliberately careful with and slowly modifying.
Forth is that the SCOTUS ruling can be legally challenged at any time.
If your lawyer has a better argument than the previous one, you may prevail.
Happens all the time.
Fifth is that the population is always the final arbiter of any government action, and may choose to dissolve government completely at any time they wish.
They always have that legal authority, in a democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

There are no constitutionally protected rights.

Statements like these make you sound like a total fucking idiot.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on pissing your pants publicly like this, but ok go right ahead.

Obviously if there were constitutionally protected rights, that would end up as a dictatorship.

No moron, it wouldn't.

We have that, and we are not a dictatorship.

...Do you sniff glue as a hobby?

No, we do not have rights created by government or enumerated in the Constitution.
The constitution just lists what rights the federal government is not allowed to restrict.
All rights pre-exist any legislation, and all rights need some restrictions.
So the Bill of Rights just was to divide jurisdiction as to what level of government was to pass restrictions on them.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.

It is hilarious to watch you have all these constructs in your head that have zero connection to reality.

REALITY is that the states cannot violate your constitutionaly protected rights. This is not up for debate or revision, that ship has looong ago sailed and you should at some point come to terms with that REALITY.

That’s your construct. SCOTUS rulings are always subject to reinterpretation

No they are not. They are the final say to the case and niether you, nor anyone else has any power to re-interpret it.

Wrong.
First of all, the SCOTUS makes mistakes, like the Dred Scott decision.
Second is that some rulings are deliberately narrow and stated as not being a precedent.
Third is that all SCOTUS ruling slowly reshape over time.
For example, the incorporation of additional rights as hinted at by the Bill of Rights did not all get assumed when the 14th amendment got passed.
It is a slow ongoing process of incorporation that the SCOTUS has been deliberately careful with and slowly modifying.
Forth is that the SCOTUS ruling can be legally challenged at any time.
If your lawyer has a better argument than the previous one, you may prevail.
Happens all the time.
Fifth is that the population is always the final arbiter of any government action, and may choose to dissolve government completely at any time they wish.
They always have that legal authority, in a democratic republic.

The general idia of constitional protection of rights is not subject for SCOTUS to revisit. It is not subject for SCOTUS to change it's mind on. It's is set in stone unless the states will get togather and change the Constitution.

Time to wake up and smell those roses mr.pie-in-the-fucking-sky, your construct about there not being constitutionally protected rights is a FANTASY that has no relationship to reality.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too fucking bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

 

[BULLDOG]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too fucking bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.