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

Wrong.

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

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

The Vegas mass shooting was at full auto rates of fire.
That normally can not be done with an AR.
You are correct an AR was used, but it was the BUMP STOCK that allowed it to be such a high rate of fire.
An AR by itself can not achieve that rate of fire.

{... The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in modern United States history. It focused attention on firearms laws in the U.S., particularly with regard to bump stocks, which Paddock used to fire shots in rapid succession, at a rate of fire similar to automatic weapons.[4] As a result, bump stocks were banned by the U.S. Justice Department in December 2018, with the regulation in effect as of March 2019. ...}

As to a pump shotgun, they are available with detachable magazines, and in fact the tubular magazine can be extended as long as you want. The point though is that each shot can contain over 20 lethal pellets or so, which makes is a much higher rate of fire than any AR.

 

[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

Wrong.
Assault weapons are no more easy to be deadly than all the other weapons.
They just are cheap and common.

In fact, historically arson has been used for mass killing far more than firearms at all.
That is because by using something like arson to kill, the person can sneak away and not be at as much risk.

The idea you can reduce the murder rate by destroying the democratic republic with regulations, is absurd.
The solution to murders in a democratic republic should be to increase equality and liberty, not reduce it.
Gun control just increased the need for another rebellion.

 

[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

Wrong.
Something that has never been used as a weapon of war does not mean it could not be used as a weapon of war in a pinch.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

Wrong.
If you take out the plug, most shotguns can take 10 shells, and each shell contains 21 pellets of 6 mm size.
That is 210 pellets down range before reloading, and can be fired off in about 5 seconds.

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

In no way does the need for an organized militia diminish the need for individual arms, not only for individual defense, but to make an organized militia possible as well.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit. When the shooter has to reload he is vulnerable. If he's dropping a mag and slamming in a new 30 round mag, that vulnerable time is a blink of an eye.

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

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

No...he isn't......I have heard the accounts of survivors in these mass shootings, I have gone through ALICE training for mass shootings, and the survivors and the law enforcement instructors will tell you that the shooters in all of these attacks are calm....they are not rushed in what they do, and they have plenty of time to reload...

You don't know what you are talking about....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----




The offend in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

---

 

[BlindBoo]

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).

It will when or if they get drafted, (18 to 45) anyway.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Bullshit. When the shooter has to reload he is vulnerable. If he's dropping a mag and slamming in a new 30 round mag, that vulnerable time is a blink of an eye.

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

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

Moron.....in Vegas, the guy was firing from over 200 yards away into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, with limited access to exits from the area he was shooting at.......

It was the target, not the rifle that caused the high number of casualities.......had they not been tightly packed and 22,000 in number he wouldn't have been able to hit so many since they would have runaway, making them incredibly hard to hit by even experienced shooters, or they would have taken cover...

You don't know what you are talking about...

It isn't the weapon or the magazine size, you idiot....it is the gun free zone status of the target.........the attack stops when someone finally shoots back at the attacker...when that happens, they commit suicide, surrender or run away...

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boulder, rifle 10 killed

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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........

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

In no way does the need for an organized militia diminish the need for individual arms, not only for individual defense, but to make an organized militia possible as well.

The days of the colonial militia are over and done. Today the States Militia equivalences are the State National Guards. That is the organized militia. The unorganized militia are the rest of the able bodied citizens who are eligible for the draft.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

The notion of "collective rights" is just so wrong it is silly.

States have rights or there would have never been a civil war in the US.

 

[danielpalos]

In no way does the need for an organized militia diminish the need for individual arms, not only for individual defense, but to make an organized militia possible as well.

That is just right wing propaganda. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 ...

 

[danielpalos]

This is a State's sovereign right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The whole and entire People are the Militia.

 

[bendog]

exactly so. The militia clause is irrelevant to citizens having a right to own and use firearms, and citizens have a right to self defense and other legal recreational uses of firearms.

But it also means that the government has a right to restrict what weapons they can have. That without a "militia" requirement, they have no right to weapons of military origin.

I agree, sort of. But maybe not so much on AR-15s. The govt has powers, but no rights. Only we get rights. Essentially, Scalia said the right to arms was NOT based on the militia clause because states/colonies don't have militias anymore. Some have state defense forces. And those defense forces cannot be called upon to serve in the federal armies (although members can be drafted). We don't need a "well regulated militia anymore, and rational people agree that those who say otherwise are bat shit crazy. A state defense force is something used for tornado relief and organizing covid facilities. Perhaps they can guard specific locations.

The reason Scalia said that is that rational people realize the if we are going to have an individual right it has to be based on English common law and what people in 1776 and 1790 understood as their right. Scalia said that without the militia clause people didn't have 'a right' to military arms. I think all rational people can agree that RPGs, indirect fire weapons, fully automatic weapons, and shoulder held SAMS are verboten. For reasons obvious to rational people.

Scalia said an assault weapons ban could be consititutional. But it was not automatically so. You and I have rights to defend ourselves. We have rights to protect our land from coyotes and other "pests." And we have a right to recreation and practice shooting. No right is absolute, but the govt can't take away rights unless the important reason they want to do it cannot be accomplished while allowing us rights.

 

[bendog]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

State defense forces are the organized militia for that State.

 

[bendog]

This is a State's sovereign right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The whole and entire People are the Militia.

STates don't have rights.

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.

State defense forces are the organized militia for that State.

But the state does not compel citizens to arm and train to be in the state defense forces. They are tiny, and inconsequential except for national disasters and stuff. There cannot logically be any right to you or I owing jack shit based on states having "self defense forces" of at most a couple of thousand.

You and I have rights to own firearms, but the right comes from English common law. And people in US cities commonly were armed in 1787, although there were laws restricting carry and firing weapons, and absolutely people on the frontier were armed. We killed people trying to steal our shit, we slaughtered the native americans, we killed wildlife to extinction and we had lots of fun.