Elementary school shooting

[AmyNation]

If the second amendment is designed to protect us from government tyranny, then it is only logical that suitable weapons must be available to meet the government.

You clearly are driven by your feelings and not logic in any form. Fortuantely cowards like yourself are not in abundance and the rest of us will defend your rights that you so freely discard.

And yet, civilians arent allowed to own nuclear weapons.

I'm sure you will relate that in a meanful way soon. At the moment it just looks lame.

And yet, it's the perfect response to the "we should be allowed to own military weapons so we can defend ourselves from the military".

 

[saveliberty]

saveliberty, you don't have the right to own military weapons platforms. Read Heller.

Why would I want to own such an indiscriminate weapon?

(Not to mention the maintenance costs and inspections.) lol

You have to look at the current conflicts around globe. IEDs and semi to automatic weapons are the usual fare.

 

[saveliberty]

And yet, civilians arent allowed to own nuclear weapons.

I'm sure you will relate that in a meanful way soon. At the moment it just looks lame.

And yet, it's the perfect response to the "we should be allowed to own military weapons so we can defend ourselves from the military".

If you can sort out the combatants from innocents with a nuclear device, your way smarter than me. It is a really, really poor response Amy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

saveliberty, you don't need or have a constitutional right to an automatic assault rifle. Yes, the government can ban that. Have in the past, will in the future.

 

[AmyNation]

Lol! Thanks for the constructive criticism.

 

[AmyNation]

Goverment can and does limit the type of weapons civilians can own. You cannot effectively defend yourself from the goverment with an assault rifle. We have evolved beyond that point.

That being said, I don't think banning the sale of certain types of guns will have any real effect on gun crime.

 

[saveliberty]

saveliberty, you don't need or have a constitutional right to an automatic assault rifle. Yes, the government can ban that. Have in the past, will in the future.

Has that ban been tested in the Supreme Court? If so, what was the justification and limits to its use they placed on it?

My guess is it wasn't tested and partially because of the end date of the law. Not permanent.

Thank you for the civil replies jake. Appreciated as always.

 

[saveliberty]

Goverment can and does limit the type of weapons civilians can own. You cannot effectively defend yourself from the goverment with an assault rifle. We have evolved beyond that point.

That being said, I don't think banning the sale of certain types of guns will have any real effect on gun crime.

Have you been watching Syria Amy? Sure it takes a long time and lives, but that war is being won with just such weapons. Military people defecting due to fighting their own people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of that was answered in Heller in 1(F). Look it up.

saveliberty, you don't need or have a constitutional right to an automatic assault rifle. Yes, the government can ban that. Have in the past, will in the future.

Has that ban been tested in the Supreme Court? If so, what was the justification and limits to its use they placed on it?

My guess is it wasn't tested and partially because of the end date of the law. Not permanent.

Thank you for the civil replies jake. Appreciated as always.

 

[AmyNation]

If it gives you comfort to think you can effectively fight the US government with an assault rifle, then keep thinking that.

I happen to disagree.

 

[saveliberty]

If it gives you comfort to think you can effectively fight the US government with an assault rifle, then keep thinking that.

I happen to disagree.

You certainly have that right. You also should have the right to not have me be snarky in my response earlier. My apologies, you did not represent that to me, I should have not replied that way.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The literalist reveals a shallow mind. The point is (and follow closely if you can) there are weapons designed for military use. The design mandate is the ability to kill as many people in as short a period of time as possible. Such weapons are fitted out with semi or fully automatic firing systems or a semi automatic firing system modified to act as fully automatic. They are also equipped with high capacity magazines to sustain that ghastly rate of fire. Such weapons have no legitimate civilian use and should never be in the hands of civilians.

Steps have been taken to keep some military weapons out of civilian hands. My position is the ban is incomplete. All military weapons must be out of civilian hands.

Now, pick some fly shit out of that ground pepper, or bring logic.

22 years in the Army and never once was I issued anything other than a 20 round magazine...........

Would a civilian need more fire power?

Give an idiot a 100 round mag and it will probably jam up within 30 rounds.
But the point is that I see nothing wrong with owning a Semi Automatic AR 15 or similar weapon....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The literalist reveals a shallow mind. The point is (and follow closely if you can) there are weapons designed for military use. The design mandate is the ability to kill as many people in as short a period of time as possible. Such weapons are fitted out with semi or fully automatic firing systems or a semi automatic firing system modified to act as fully automatic. They are also equipped with high capacity magazines to sustain that ghastly rate of fire. Such weapons have no legitimate civilian use and should never be in the hands of civilians.

Steps have been taken to keep some military weapons out of civilian hands. My position is the ban is incomplete. All military weapons must be out of civilian hands.

Now, pick some fly shit out of that ground pepper, or bring logic.

If the second amendment is designed to protect us from government tyranny, then it is only logical that suitable weapons must be available to meet the government.

You clearly are driven by your feelings and not logic in any form. Fortuantely cowards like yourself are not in abundance and the rest of us will defend your rights that you so freely discard.

The Second Amendment is designed to protect us from government tyranny by placing limits on the power of the state, where the state is compelled to limit a right only after affording a citizen due process.

Whether it’s the right to free speech, the right to privacy, or the right to self-defense, the government is required to be consistent in its application of limiting any right:

[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied
to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”
478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

This is therefore not a right designed to ‘meet the government,’ rather, it is a right designed to allow the citizen to protect his home, family, and self from criminal violence, and afford the citizen weapons suitable to realize that goal.

Although the Heller Court was addressing the issue of an outright ban ‘of an entire class of “arms,”’ handguns, it’s logical to extrapolate that such a rationale may be applied to other weapons “in common use at the time,” which would include semi-automatic rifles. As the Heller Majority noted:

“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

Given the vast number of AR 15s sold over the decades, such weapons are obviously “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” the capacity and design of their magazines or other cosmetic configurations are undoubtedly irrelevant in determining whether or not their possession is protected by the Constitution.

Last, the Heller Court correctly acknowledges the fact that no right is absolute, that there are many appropriate restrictions with regard to Second Amendment rights, and that government has a compelling interest to apply those restrictions – save that of an outright ban of a firearm legally possessed, in common use, and used for a lawful purpose.

 

[jtpr312]

steph, you are talking as if you are one one of the least intelligent posters on the board. Just telling the truth.

The laws will pass, and any of your wack crowed gets violent, that person(s) will die.

All of us are part of the social compact, and all of us will comply with the laws of We the People.

Dear, you don't understand. Some of you on the far right crazee gun crowd are going to go over the law, be caged either in a coffin or in a super max, and 90% of America will go "ho hum" and never think of those who do again.

meds dear...and you should be telling the gang bangers, the mobsters, your gun tooten politicians that first, then come back and tell us legal gun owning citizens

Yeah, tens of millions who thought just like you do suffered and died in the gulags of the Soviet Union. As for me, better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You should copyright that line, Jethro. You are a regular Patrick Henry.

Such a manly man. Too bad you are a ******* lunatic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Goverment can and does limit the type of weapons civilians can own. You cannot effectively defend yourself from the goverment with an assault rifle. We have evolved beyond that point.

That being said, I don't think banning the sale of certain types of guns will have any real effect on gun crime.

Yes the government can regulate certain firearms, those that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'

 

[LoneLaugher]

Goverment can and does limit the type of weapons civilians can own. You cannot effectively defend yourself from the goverment with an assault rifle. We have evolved beyond that point.

That being said, I don't think banning the sale of certain types of guns will have any real effect on gun crime.

Yes the government can regulate certain firearms, those that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'

Those...........do.

Imbecile.

 

[JimBowie1958]

steph, you are talking as if you are one one of the least intelligent posters on the board. Just telling the truth.

The laws will pass, and any of your wack crowed gets violent, that person(s) will die.

All of us are part of the social compact, and all of us will comply with the laws of We the People.

meds dear...and you should be telling the gang bangers, the mobsters, your gun tooten politicians that first, then come back and tell us legal gun owning citizens

Yeah, tens of millions who thought just like you do suffered and died in the gulags of the Soviet Union. As for me, better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

You should apologize to Starkey for acusing him of the crime of thought.

I highly doubt that has ever happened to him at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Goverment can and does limit the type of weapons civilians can own. You cannot effectively defend yourself from the goverment with an assault rifle. We have evolved beyond that point.

That being said, I don't think banning the sale of certain types of guns will have any real effect on gun crime.

Yes the government can regulate certain firearms, those that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'

Those...........do.

Imbecile.

He is refering to established case law. What about that makes him an imbecile? For taking lawyers seriously?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You should copyright that line, Jethro. You are a regular Patrick Henry.

Such a manly man. Too bad you are a ******* lunatic.

You cant even get the mans name right; so shut the **** up already.

Why are libtards so ******* stupid?