I will support the reinstatement of the 1994 'assault weapon ban' if...

[M14 Shooter]

... you can show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.

 

[PaulS1950]

I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.
I already know that it violates the second amendment and that there is no way it can keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It is highly unlikely (never say never) that I will ever own an AR-15 or similar weapon (I am a reloader and I hate chasing brass) but I will fight to the death to support the right to own one. I will also fight to the death to support the 9 other rights that are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Why? It's quite simple, if government can take away or restrict one right they can do the same thing to all of our rights. These are supposed to be "God given rights" and the government, the last time I looked, hasn't become powerful enough to take power from him.

 

[Sarah G]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

 

[neomalthusian]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

Might wanna read this:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice
Christopher S. Koper (Principal Investigator)
Daniel J. Woods and Jeffrey A. Roth
Jerry Lee Center of Criminology
University of Pennsylvania
3814 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

9.4. Summary

Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non- banned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.

(snip)

Having said this, the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading.

In short, what your emotions tell you about the sensibility if banning assault weapons might not yield any actual results. Do it anyway though?

 

[martybegan]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

Seems there are millions of people on "the fringe" who disagree with you.

And if you have to resort to calling someone who disagrees with you an "extremist" then I doubt your ability to even consider that rational people can have an opinion opposite of your own.

and please give me a legal definition of "mentally deranged" that would allow the state to judicially prevent her from owning firearms, being that she had no criminal record, and more than likely passed all the background checks required by the feds AND the state of conneticuit, a notoriously anti gun state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

... you can show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

Can you show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show these three things, please explain why you support it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

If you cannot show it would have been, and will be, effective, in stopping such incidents how can you show that the ban is pursuant to a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to that end?

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

Show this to be true,

 

[PaulS1950]

Silence for a moment and think, you moron. You have been answered competently by your betters morally and by those who know the Constitution and love our country more than you.

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

QUOTE]

The Heller decision did not specify which guns were protected or allow for the confiscation of guns already legally owned. What the Heller decision covered was whether or not the second amendment applied to the district of Columbia - a federal enclave. The ruling was that it did.
The next ruling by the high court was the McDonald v. Chicago and it was a decision that the second amendment extended to all the states and not just federal enclaves. There has never been a ruling on what guns or under what conditions guns can be banned. There has never been a decision of what reimbursement must be made to owners of legal guns in the case of confiscation.
As a matter of fact there is one decision that stated that the second amendment does protect the rights to own a military weapon by the reason of the founders wanting the people to be able to protect the country from tyrany whether it was external or internal.
Therefore banning "assault weapons" is a clear violation of the intent of the second amendment.

Furthermore, if you empower the government to restrict or remove one part of the Bill of Rights you have opened the door to the restriction or removal of all of our rights. Would you like to lose your right to free speech? How about your freedom of religion? Would you like to be searched as you walk down the street? or have your home searched without a warrant?
Be very careful in what powers you give to your government. History shows us that very bad things happen when the government has more power than the people.
Eternal vigilance in the price of freedom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Silence for a moment and think, you moron.

Sooo..

You freely admit that you -cannot- show how the ban meets a compelling state interest and that you -cannot- show how a ban does not violate the Constitution.

Thank you for playing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PaulS1950, stop the nonsense. Tell us what Heller 1(F) portends for the future.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I correctly answered your poorly thought out question, which has nothing to offer at all to the issue.

You cannot show how a ban will not meet a compelling interest.

I guarantee you that SCOTUS will for you, however.

Silence for a moment and think, you moron.

Sooo..

You freely admit that you -cannot- show how the ban meets a compelling state interest and that you -cannot- show how a ban does not violate the Constitution.

Thank you for playing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Heller decision did not specify which guns were protected...

Save your breath - Jake is neither willing nor able to have this conversation to any worthwile degree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I do not permit knuckleheads to pontificate as if they have anything of worth to add to the discussion.

SCOTUS and Congress will decide this for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a matter of fact there is one decision that stated that the second amendment does protect the rights to own a military weapon by the reason of the founders wanting the people to be able to protect the country from tyrany whether it was external or internal.
Therefore banning "assault weapons" is a clear violation of the intent of the second amendment.

Correct. Miller.

Under Miller, which is -expanded- upon by Heller, 'assault weapons' are among the best examples of the sort of weapons protected by the 2nd.

Thus. there's no sound argument for the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Incorrect, one of the reasons for a well regulated militia is to put down insurrections.

 

[idb]

What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?

Easy.
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.

 

[idb]

What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?

Easy.
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.

That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.

The preamble (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...) I think suggests a collective meaning of 'people' (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...), and doesn't refer to an individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I don't fully understand is that if the intent of the second amendment was as a counterbalance to government tyranny, how does that translate into a constitutional right to carry them for personal protection?

Easy.
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.

That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.

You know this has been settled, right?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.