Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto M4 carbine?

[westwall]

This is a lie – it ‘stipulates’ no such thing.

It is not a lie. The PEOPLE WERE the army back then. Thus the Founders wanted them to have access to the best possible. The 2nd is worded exactly correct for a person who understands ENGLISH. According to your warped interpretation the ownership of cannons by individuals would be outlawed, yet the very first artillery unit in the US was the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston. Private people owning cannons that the Federal government couldn't afford.

As usual you lie to make a ridiculous and unfounded point. One that is not supported by the writings of the Founders, nor by factual history.

Now crawl back under your rock.

 

[westwall]

No. Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.

Wrong. Anyone who understands the English language as it was written at that time KNOWS that the individual is referenced. Only a retard like you can fecklessly make the claim that a list of individual Rights would somehow have a collective Right inserted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would be really hard to classify the primary small arm of the US Army as "unusual".

But then again, you are the epitome of the pseudo intellectual.

‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.’

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Factually untrue. The dumbocrap fascists need to disarm us before they can institute their fascist clown show. Morons, like you, continuously misinterpret the 2nd for the simple reason that you want it to happen.

No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.

 

[2aguy]

No. Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.

no, they disnt. Read Heller. The Right goes back in history and they dollow it feom Wngland ro the colonies.

And to further correct you, until the last few decades no one needed the court to interpret the Right because normal people understand it. You guys started to pretend the Right, plainly written, didnt exist. So it had to be taken through the courts to fifhr your attempt to end the Right.

 

[2aguy]

‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.’

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

You morons always forget this part of Heller......in your eagerness to say that Scalia gives you permission to ban every gun you want banned......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


Then Alito goes on in Caetano v Massachusetts to deny you asshats the "Dangerous and Unusual," excuse to ban guns...

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

-----

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

Then....Scalia explains Heller further in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park

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.

 

[2aguy]

No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.

They state, in public, that they want to take guns away....the leadership of the democrat party tells us this openly and now proudly....you lying asshole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. Scalia and company reinterpreted it to mean that after after two hundred years of people interpreting it the other way.

Be that as it may…

Scalia had to disconnect the Second Amendment from militia service in order to justify abandoning the collective right argument in favor of an individual right.

The collective right argument held that because military-type weapons were the sole purview of the armed forces, their prohibition by civilians was lawful and Constitutional.

By recognizing an individual right, Scalia laid the groundwork for future cases challenging AWBs, allowing civilians to possess semi-auto AR 15s and the like.

Civilians could own semi-auto AR 15s not because of possible ‘militia service,’ but because they have an individual right to do so pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But citizens were not entitled to the same weapons as the military, such as a full-auto M4, just because they declare themselves a ‘militia.’

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a lie and delusional idiocy.

No one wants to ‘disarm’ you.

No one wants to ‘oppress’ you.

Grow up.

your premise is a lie,,

 

[2aguy]

Be that as it may…

Scalia had to disconnect the Second Amendment from militia service in order to justify abandoning the collective right argument in favor of an individual right.

The collective right argument held that because military-type weapons were the sole purview of the armed forces, their prohibition by civilians was lawful and Constitutional.

By recognizing an individual right, Scalia laid the groundwork for future cases challenging AWBs, allowing civilians to possess semi-auto AR 15s and the like.

Civilians could own semi-auto AR 15s not because of possible ‘militia service,’ but because they have an individual right to do so pursuant to lawful self-defense.

But citizens were not entitled to the same weapons as the military, such as a full-auto M4, just because they declare themselves a ‘militia.’

He didn't disconnect the Right, the Right was never conditioned on militia service you dumbass...

From Heller.....you idiot...

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.”

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5
-----------
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
----
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.
--------
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
-----
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
--------
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
---
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
----
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
----
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It takes a fool to own a gun.
It takes a bigger fool to fail to realize the danger.
It takes an even BIGGER fool to think he's smart enough to argue against my logic.

Strike three! You're a fool!

Shut the fuck up. You're a goddamn idiot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.

Where?

That it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

True.

– including a full-auto M4.

False.

An M4 absolutely fits within the Miller holding, which was upheld by Heller. In fact, that is the precise weapon the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect--weapons used by a common soldier, for service in a militia.

The weapon used by the average soldier in the U.S. standing military is????? EXACTLY. The M4.

An M4 is not an unusual weapon.

And it says that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

An M4 is dangerous, but not also unusual. Dangerous AND unusual both are required to be regulated, under Heller.

Consequently, laws prohibiting the possession of full-auto M4s are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

WRONG. They are precisely the weapons the 2A intended to protect.

Just because you want your interpretation to be true, does not mean that it is.

REGARDLESS!!! NOBODY can argue that the Federal Government has ANY authority whatsoever, BECAUSE of the 2A.

The fact that Scalia tap danced around that very obvious point was the most disappointing display by a man who always presented himself as a textualist or strict constructionist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.

This is a lie and delusional idiocy.
The Second Amendment says no such thing.
And thus, another statement by you, proven to be a lie.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

M4 is what the army has, it's what the National Guard has, the militia should have it too.

 

[Dadoalex]

You are really dumb.

Guns, you idiot, are used 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies and murders. That number is more than the criminals murdered by other criminals with guns…..you doofus. Lives saved with guns

Proof?
Or just wild claims from your fellow gun idiots?

I'll pick the latter since you have no proof.

Much like you haven't the intellect to know that claims are not proof, fool

 

[Dadoalex]

Do your parents know you are on the internet again? They grounded you for a month.

Do your parents know you beat your meat thibnking about me?

You really should try something of your own species, like

 

[Dadoalex]

You can't disprove a negative, dumbass.

What was the negative shitbrain?
I said all guns started life in the hands of "responsible" gun owners. A claim I can prove.
What you're doing is admitting you made a claim that you know was false.
That means you called yourself a liar.


You can't prove that every gun was "born" in the hands of a "responsible law abiding" gun owner?

Then you should be on board with my suggestions which WILL keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Dadoalex]

Shut the fuck up. You're a goddamn idiot.

Ohh.
Looks like I twisted somebody's panties a little to tight.
Wassamatta...Undies up the butt crack further than usual?
Truth hurts don't it Nancy?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Proof?
Or just wild claims from your fellow gun idiots?

I'll pick the latter since you have no proof.

Much like you haven't the intellect to know that claims are not proof, fool

There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights). They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year. Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.

 

[2aguy]

There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights). They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year. Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.

And here they are, the most recent on 2020....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey