Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[BotanyBoy]

That's nice. You still failed to answer a simple question.

Does "the people" as referenced in;

The Declaration - We the people
Amendment 1 - the right of the people
Amendment 2 - the right of the people
Amendment 4 - the right of the people
Amendment 9 - by the people
Amendment 10 - or to the people

mean something different in each case or not?

It can't answer that, it's operating under the premise that 'the right of the people' ACTUALLY means the right of the government.

Because it's in-fuckin-sane.

 

[KeithD]

That's nice. You still failed to answer a simple question.

Does "the people" as referenced in;

The Declaration - We the people
Amendment 1 - the right of the people
Amendment 2 - the right of the people
Amendment 4 - the right of the people
Amendment 9 - by the people
Amendment 10 - or to the people

mean something different in each case or not?

It fucking doesn't matter and you are throwing up a fake smoke screen just to be a disgusting jackass.

The "people" involved in the 2nd Amendment are armed for the purpose of being in a regulated militia, which in today's world isn't any broader than the formal armed services and the national guard. Join one of these and they'll give you a gun. They also will be pissed if you take it into a school, theater, or church and start shooting people with it.

And you folks just won't face that nothing in the 2nd Amendment says you can have just any old firearm. There's nothing there that supports a civilian having an AR-15. When written, it included a musket or a flintlock, not a bazooka, and if you're so blindly determined to be a strict constructionist, a flintlock or musket is all you are justified in having. The only reason the 2nd Amendment exists is the government couldn't, at the time, afford either a standing army or to pay for weapons for whoever would show up to defend it. It wasn't written for stupid bastards like you to have an AR-15 for a toy and a murder weapon and to fail to acknowledge that we no longer are in the eighteenth century. The government can and does regulate what kind of firearm you can have, 2nd Amendment be damned.

You're just being a disgusting jackass. Here's hoping the next AR-15 event mows you or someone you love down, because you have the human sensitivity, selfishness, and stupidity of a clod of mud.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It fucking doesn't matter and you are throwing up a fake smoke screen just to be a disgusting jackass.

The "people" involved in the 2nd Amendment are armed for the purpose of being in a regulated militia

Yes it does matter and that's not what 2A says.

Not to anyone who can read or the SCOTUS.

And you folks just won't face that nothing in the 2nd Amendment says you can have just any old firearm. There's nothing there that supports a civilian having an AR-15.

Nothing in the 2nd that says you can't. It just says arms.

And the arms + shall not be infringed bit makes a much better argument for civilians having them than the government banning/confiscating them.

 

[KeithD]

Nothing in the 2nd that says you can't.

It just says arms.

I did mention your stupidity, didn't I? The government won't let a civilian have a stinger or nuclear missile, so the government can and does define what firearms a civilian can have.

What is it in the way you were raised that makes you so stupid and such a despicable jackass? Again, I hope the next AR-15 event mows you or someone you love down. Apparently it will take that you get you to overcome your stupidity and vileness.

 

[phrodeau]

It can't answer that, it's operating under the premise that 'the right of the people' ACTUALLY means the right of the government.

Because it's in-fuckin-sane.

And you're operating under the premise that the 2nd Amendment says having a militia means that everyone needs guns to protect themselves from it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I did mention your stupidity, didn't I? The government won't let a civilian have a stinger or nuclear missile, so the government can and does define what firearms a civilian can have.

I didn't say it didn't.....I did mention your literacy issusues, didn't I??

What is it in the way you were raised that makes you so stupid and such a despicable jackass?

It's called a US History and Civics class.

Reading court cases, the federalist papers, having a sense of national pride and patriotism.

Supporting the civil rights, rule of law, social and economic freedom for all....basic M'arican liberal shit.

Again, I hope the next AR-15 event mows you or someone you love down.

What a sad thing to wish upon others....

But they better get me good, AR-15's are pretty weak, I've survived far worse and killed the mother fuckers who were trying.

Apparently it will take that you get you to overcome your stupidity and vileness.

Nah....I've been shot, stabbed, blown up, beat and burnt.

Still stay strapped all day every day because I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

It's a matter of statutory Construction. The full amendment (which IS found in the Bill of Rights, Blue), declares:

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.

Specific and absolute statutory statements always trump more general ones. Thus, the part of the Second Amendment that controls is: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So say the courts.

I'll be honest. I find that somewhat unsatisfactory myself. The way I look at, "militia" can mean many different things. Here, it is must be read in its broadest sense. In that case, the militia becomes everyone who could aid in "the security of a free State." Essentially, pretty much everyone beyond childhood.

So according to the 2nd Amendment, pretty much everyone should be well regulated.

Right, but notice that due to the rules of statutory construction, "well regulated" cannot "infringe" upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

"Concealed carrying" laws provide a good example of this. The government cannot tell a citizen that he or she cannot carry (i.e., "infringe" upon the right to bear) a firearm, but the government can "regulate" how the firearm is carried (e.g., that you need a permit to carry it concealed), because that does not infringe upon the carrying.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And you're operating under the premise that the 2nd Amendment says having a militia means that everyone needs guns to protect themselves from it.

Not at all.

I'm operating under the premise that the "right of the people" is an individual right that isn't dependent upon service to the state.

Because nothing in or about the 2A suggest that it is, as well as being the current SCOTUS ruling and thus legal reality that we live in.

 

[mark_j]

It fucking doesn't matter and you are throwing up a fake smoke screen just to be a disgusting jackass.

Yeah, it does matter.

Either the definition of "the people" in the context of the Constitution is consistent or it isn't.

What's it going to be?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That's true, but SCOTUS has never ruled as unconstitutional any type of weapons ban.

From the majority ruling in Heller:

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."[48]

Yes it does matter and that's not what 2A says.

Not to anyone who can read or the SCOTUS.



Nothing in the 2nd that says you can't. It just says arms.

And the arms + shall not be infringed bit makes a much better argument for civilians having them than the government banning/confiscating them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's true, but SCOTUS has never ruled as unconstitutional any type of weapons ban.

From the majority ruling in Heller:

That's because nobody has been dumb enough to try because they can read 2A.

Banning guns at large would be a really hard sell even to a court biased in favor of gun control and pretty much impossible with the current justices.

You can restrict/regulate access......can't ban.

That's why "assault weapons" bans don't actually ban any guns, just certain features ignorant shits find scary looking and why they don't really do much of anything except give the ignorant shits a warm fuzzy.

 

[coachdb18]

Slightly off topic but I just found out that the March For Our Lives protests in Washington drew 200,000 more people than Trumps inauguration crowd.

Heheh

The numbers of people who march in a parade is no more important than the popular vote was in the 2016 election. The electoral college was the important factor in that contest, and the 2nd amendment is the primary factor in America’s gun laws. It’s Natural Law, much like a law of physics, in which your feelings about gravity don’t make you weigh any less, as much as you may think Oprah told you otherwise. It was never a right dispensed by government, and it’s not in the governments power to take it away. It’s a pre-existing right, to which the government promised the people it would not challenge the rights as specified in the Bill of Rights. That promise is unalienable.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Wiki:

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

Who's talking "guns at large?" There's been a call for military style assault rifles, not ALL guns. You didn't hear that on Saturday.

And yes, there was an Assault Weapons Ban and it DID "ban guns"--some by name, specifically, and assault weapons AS DEFINED.

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:

I'm not sure what you mean by distinguishing banning "certain features" from banning "a gun," but if the gubmint defines an assault rifle as "possessing two or more from a set of certain features" as "a gun," then they are banning the guns they want to ban.

But hey, thanks for complaining about not banning the things that make assault rifles actually dangerous: I'm sure future bans will keep that in mind.

That's because nobody has been dumb enough to try because they can read 2A.

Banning guns at large would be a really hard sell even to a court biased in favor of gun control and pretty much impossible with the current justices.

You can restrict/regulate access......can't ban.

That's why "assault weapons" bans don't actually ban any guns, just certain features ignorant shits find scary looking and why they don't really do much of anything except give the ignorant shits a warm fuzzy.

 

[mark_j]

The "people" involved in the 2nd Amendment are armed for the purpose of being in a regulated militia, which in today's world isn't any broader than the formal armed services and the national guard. Join one of these and they'll give you a gun. They also will be pissed if you take it into a school, theater, or church and start shooting people with it.

And you folks just won't face that nothing in the 2nd Amendment says you can have just any old firearm. There's nothing there that supports a civilian having an AR-15. When written, it included a musket or a flintlock, not a bazooka, and if you're so blindly determined to be a strict constructionist, a flintlock or musket is all you are justified in having. The only reason the 2nd Amendment exists is the government couldn't, at the time, afford either a standing army or to pay for weapons for whoever would show up to defend it. It wasn't written for stupid bastards like you to have an AR-15 for a toy and a murder weapon and to fail to acknowledge that we no longer are in the eighteenth century. The government can and does regulate what kind of firearm you can have, 2nd Amendment be damned.

You're just being a disgusting jackass. Here's hoping the next AR-15 event mows you or someone you love down, because you have the human sensitivity, selfishness, and stupidity of a clod of mud.

Do you feel better now that you got that all out of your system?

If so then how about showing the research that backs up all your histrionics.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No, it isn't.

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says certain guns can't be banned, or severely restricted, or that we can't have a say in how we want guns regulated. Not a thing, acc to SCOTUS itself.

The fact is the NRA and you idjits are the primary factors in America's gun laws.

If the NRA gets decapitated, which it will, and if sensible gun owners have their way (overwhelming majority of which support changes) then laws can easily change.

The numbers of people who march in a parade is no more important than the popular vote was in the 2016 election. The electoral college was the important factor in that contest, and the 2nd amendment is the primary factor in America’s gun laws. It’s Natural Law, much like a law of physics, in which your feelings about gravity don’t make you weigh any less, as much as you may think Oprah told you otherwise. It was never a right dispensed by government, and it’s not in the governments power to take it away. It’s a pre-existing right, to which the government promised the people it would not challenge the rights as specified in the Bill of Rights. That promise is unalienable.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says certain guns can't be banned, or severely restricted.

Yea there is...it's right there in the last four words.

A gun ban would be about as direct violation of 2A as it gets.

And yes, there was an Assault Weapons Ban and it DID "ban guns"--some by name, specifically, and assault weapons AS DEFINED.

And it effectively banned no guns.

I'm not sure what you mean by distinguishing banning "certain features" from banning "a gun," but if the gubmint defines an assault rifle as "possessing two or more from a set of certain features" as "a gun," then they are banning the guns they want to ban.

No, they just ban features.

Which is why *NOT* AR-15 and *NOT* "assault" weapons like this .223/5.56mmNATO Semi-automatic rifle....

http://carsguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FRS-15-AR15-rifle-legal-california-001.jpeg

Will still be sold all fucking day.....

Even though in EVERY functional way, accuracy, firepower, rate of fire, weight, all of it.... just like an AR-15.

But hey, thanks for complaining about not banning the things that make assault rifles actually dangerous: I'm sure future bans will keep that in mind.

"assault weapons" aren't any more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifles firing the same cartridges. That's why I say ban all semi-auto or you're just pissing up a flag pole and highlighting how truly ignorant you are on the topic.

Now people who want to shoot shit up will be forced to get the REALLY dangerous shit.

Like Pee-Pawz Huntin' rifle!!! Packing SIGNIFICANTLY more firepower than an AR15...
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e7/bd/f9/e7bdf902860be84d33d7c139890b0ff4.jpg

Make that AR-15 look like a pea shooter... but hey it's got a wood stock!! So it's not anywhere near as dangerous .....LOL

 

[coachdb18]

For a law to be obeyed, it must be legal. The lesson of Lt William Calley in giving a direct order to destroy My Lai is an example of an illegal order. Banning guns is just another variety of an illegal order.

 

[KimGordon67]

The numbers of people who march in a parade is no more important than the popular vote was in the 2016 election. The electoral college was the important factor in that contest, and the 2nd amendment is the primary factor in America’s gun laws. It’s Natural Law, much like a law of physics, in which your feelings about gravity don’t make you weigh any less, as much as you may think Oprah told you otherwise. It was never a right dispensed by government, and it’s not in the governments power to take it away. It’s a pre-existing right, to which the government promised the people it would not challenge the rights as specified in the Bill of Rights. That promise is unalienable.

Good grief. Human rights =/= 'natural law'. They're rights constructed by humans for humans. They don't exist outside of humanity. Laws of physics, on the other hand, exist for everything - because they are 'natural'. I think you're confusing two different means of the term 'law' here.

 

[Blue]

How can a law or right be natural, 'pre-existing', or presumably entirely indestructible and unassailable, such as a law of physics?...

The universe could literally whack a gigantic radioactive meteor into this planet and kill absolutely every living thing on it at any moment and we might not even see it coming, or a solar flare fries all our brains, or a supernova blast wave hits our solar system and utterly disintegrates the whole thing and brings billions of years of our incredibly unlikely development to a definite and brutally futile end.

The universe doesn't give a rats ass about our laws and rights, it's not bound by any concepts of mortality. Nothing we have or do is irrefutably protected from any kind of violation. How can they be comparable with the laws of physics?

 

[Hypoxia]

I think you're confusing two different means of the term 'law' here.

You omitted Light Antitank Weapon.

Some reality. Physical laws are equations defining relationships between observable factors, while human laws are codes humans create and enforce. Whatever enforcers do that judges allow is de-facto legal, no matter what one may wish to argue theologically. Law, like race, is a social construct.

Human laws neither descend from a mystical heaven nor rise from a sordid hell. Human society is a maze of vastly complicated machines. Laws are that machinery's lubrication to avoid seizing up. Like any lube, the oil must be changed regularly. 'Safe' elected seats and bought pols means the oil isn't changed.

Maoists believe "political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Really?

 

[KimGordon67]

You omitted Light Antitank Weapon.

Some reality. Physical laws are equations defining relationships between observable factors, while human laws are codes humans create and enforce. Whatever enforcers do that judges allow is de-facto legal, no matter what one may wish to argue theologically. Law, like race, is a social construct.

Human laws neither descend from a mystical heaven nor rise from a sordid hell. Human society is a maze of vastly complicated machines. Laws are that machinery's lubrication to avoid seizing up. Like any lube, the oil must be changed regularly. 'Safe' elected seats and bought pols means the oil isn't changed.

Maoists believe "political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Really?

Yes, in amongst the six definitions given here of 'law', it's pretty clear the human ones and the relationships between naturally occurring phenomena are not the same things.

Basically, if a cat falls off a chair it goes down. But cats don't get to have guns, not matter how much they meow. If it's a 'natural law', it should apply to cats as much as people.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

BLah blah.

Nothing you say contradicts history.

--Specific Guns with brand names and models = gun ban

--Guns WITH x, y, or z features = gun ban

Banning Bump Stocks = Accessory ban

It does not matter a whit that the NRA got around it. You think it's pointing out the flaws and uselessness of the Assault Weapons BAN, go ahead. You're just giving a map for how the BAN can be reworded in the future. Tell us more.

Yea there is...it's right there in the last four words.

A gun ban would be about as direct violation of 2A as it gets.

And it effectively banned no guns.

No, they just ban features.

Which is why *NOT* AR-15 and *NOT* "assault" weapons like this .223/5.56mmNATO Semi-automatic rifle....

http://carsguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FRS-15-AR15-rifle-legal-california-001.jpeg

Will still be sold all fucking day.....

Even though in EVERY functional way, accuracy, firepower, rate of fire, weight, all of it.... just like an AR-15.



"assault weapons" aren't any more dangerous than any other semi automatic rifles firing the same cartridges. That's why I say ban all semi-auto or you're just pissing up a flag pole and highlighting how truly ignorant you are on the topic.

Now people who want to shoot shit up will be forced to get the REALLY dangerous shit.

Like Pee-Pawz Huntin' rifle!!! Packing SIGNIFICANTLY more firepower than an AR15...
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e7/bd/f9/e7bdf902860be84d33d7c139890b0ff4.jpg

Make that AR-15 look like a pea shooter... but hey it's got a wood stock!! So it's not anywhere near as dangerous .....LOL

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Opinion Piece in the NY Times today:

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Stevens was one of the dissenters on the disastrous Heller decision.

 

[coachdb18]

Opinion Piece in the NY Times today:

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Stevens was one of the dissenters on the disastrous Heller decision.

Time to repeal John Paul Stevens, and replace him with yet another of the Scalia minded, right thinking Associate Justices.... and a couple others (Ginsburg and Kennedy), these old farts need to be retired.

 

[phrodeau]

If gun accessories don't make any difference or change the capability of a gun in any way, how stupid are the people who buy them?