Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[KeithD]

The reality is that rifles of any type are used to commit barely 2% of all homicides. Rifles of military caliber that would include but not be limited to semiautomatic rifles are used to commit barely 1% of all homicides.


Hysteria about "assault rifles" enables liberals to divert attention from WHO commits homicides.

Reality is that they need to go and you either need to readjust your thinking or you or your loved ones need to experience what they can do to a body first hand to get your head screwed on right.

 

[JohnnySavage]

In fairness as its written the Constitution makes zero sense in a modern world so there is that.

So Amend the Constitution. There's a procedure for that.

You know why that won't happen? Because the Dems love to use guns as a wedge issue. It mobilizes their base when there are dead kids.

And the gun industry loves when the Dems yammer on and on about doing things that are clearly unconstitutional because in increases sales.

Show me the proposed Amendment to repeal or clarify the 2nd; otherwise you're full of shit about gun control.

 

[icanhelp1]

"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

Nowhere does the definition claim full auto. Add a bump stock to an AR-15 and it is virtually full auto.

Not to mention with today's 3D printers, you can easily make a store bought AR-15 full auto by printing a conversion kit.

Selective fire doesn’t mean from safety to fire, it means select from single shot ( semi-auto ) to fully automatic fire, the definition of assault rifle. Assault weapons are machine guns.

 

[TrailerHitch]

So, he said this:



And then:




...........

(Man, this has been a fun day!)

Yawn...You are boring as hell. You think you bother me when the truth is I bother you because I won't comply with your group think.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Make up your mind, Hitchy. Are they a beautiful dumb ass or a fucking dumb ass?

and if they're beautiful, you mean in a classic Elizabeth Taylor kinda beautiful?

YOU are a FUCKING dumb ass. Happy now?

 

[TrailerHitch]

Holly Dolly, maybe?

https://i.discogs.com/TCfzFdqCTKIjNzQ3ALn2h9hLrnPMf3rriC2qhTNFkuA/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:500/w:328/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9BLTU3NzE3/NS0xMTYzMTkzNzA5/LmpwZWc.jpeg

She seems like your type.

 

[RoryN]

You think you bother me when the truth is

...you've spent countless posts telling us how liberals are supposedly morons, and then admitted you don't even know how to quote people in a forum. Yeah.

Self pwnage is best pwnage!

 

[TrailerHitch]

...you've spent countless posts telling us how liberals are supposedly morons, and then admitted you don't even know how to quote people in a forum. Yeah.

Self pwnage is best pwnage!

If that's how you identify a moron you are stupider than I thought.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So what's your plan? Abandon the entire Constitution? Or only the parts you don't like?

Abandoning the entire thing would be the simplest answer. However your accusation of it being "parts I don't like" is childish. There are huge chunks of it that very few people actually agree with. Most Americans don't even like the 2A if we were to either as its written OR as modern conservatives choose to interpret it which are very different things.

Either way most people don't agree with either interpretation when pressed.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't much care about rifles, assault or otherwise. I recognize that Americans are too fucking stupid to start trying to get fewer handguns in the hands of citizens. Though that would be fun to see at the SCOTUS just to see their reasoning for why a handgun would pass the "Well Regulated" part of the 2A. Remember, I believe it was Justice Alito but it was a bit before my time that rules that a sawed off shotgun has no place on the battlefield and can absolutely be banned. So I would LOVE to see the logic, especially in an Urban environment on how a pistol is appropriate but a sawed off is not.

Sean, you need to understand that "well regulated..." has nothing to do with, "the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is known in legal circles and SCOTUS jurisprudence as the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, what follows is known as the Operative clause. In regard to which the SCOTUS has said the following:

"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"(Heller law syllabus p.1)

"Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... 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."

The court went on to say:

"It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "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” (p.7).

In other words Sean, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

Bruen went into even greater detail and referred to the Operative clause as the "unqualified command" of the Second Amendment.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

YOU are a FUCKING dumb ass. Happy now?

Calm down, Francis.

Yer face is getting redder than the surface of Mars up in here. Maybe get a drink of water and go play some racquetball or something to vent all that steam, ey!

 

[Rightguide]

Abandoning the entire thing would be the simplest answer. However your accusation of it being "parts I don't like" is childish. There are huge chunks of it that very few people actually agree with. Most Americans don't even like the 2A if we were to either as its written OR as modern conservatives choose to interpret it which are very different things.

Either way most people don't agree with either interpretation when pressed.

You are totally wrong. Most Americans love their Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It is the reason why you aren't able to amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment. Don't include yourself and your uneducated ideas as being with "most Americans."

 

[Sean Renaud]

You are totally wrong. Most Americans love their Constitution and its Bill of Rights. It is the reason why you aren't able to amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment. Don't include yourself and your uneducated ideas as being with "most Americans."

Until you press them on the details. Then they fall apart pretty quickly. They are just sheep on the issue because of how heavily indoctrinated we are.

 

[KeithD]

So Amend the Constitution. There's a procedure for that.

The Second Amendment doesn't need to be rewritten. It just needs to be interpreted as written. It specifies a regulated militia, not civilians, and it doesn't specify what kinds of arms. We already limit the types of arms a civilian can have.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean, you need to understand that "well regulated..." has nothing to do with, "the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is known in legal circles and SCOTUS jurisprudence as the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment, what follows is known as the Operative clause. In regard to which the SCOTUS has said the following:

"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"(Heller law syllabus p.1)

"Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... 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."

The court went on to say:

"It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "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” (p.7).

In other words Sean, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

Bruen went into even greater detail and referred to the Operative clause as the "unqualified command" of the Second Amendment.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174
United States vs Miller Sawed offs aren't protected.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias; Congress could require registration of a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun if carried across state lines

Armor piercing rounds are effectively banned.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS95/rpt/olr/htm/95-R-0168.htm

I could go on and on, if we take the 2nd as written I should be able to legally own mustard gas, nukes, anything I can afford.

 

[Rightguide]

Until you press them on the details. Then they fall apart pretty quickly. They are just sheep on the issue because of how heavily indoctrinated we are.

Indoctrination is your problem.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So Amend the Constitution. There's a procedure for that.

You know why that won't happen? Because the Dems love to use guns as a wedge issue. It mobilizes their base when there are dead kids.

And the gun industry loves when the Dems yammer on and on about doing things that are clearly unconstitutional because in increases sales.

Show me the proposed Amendment to repeal or clarify the 2nd; otherwise you're full of shit about gun control.

No it won't happen because amending the Constitution is so absurdly difficult that its only happened 27 times and the first ten really shouldn't count. I wouldn't bother putting for an amendment that I knew wasn't going anywhere. Not when we've proven time and time again that going around the Constitution is just the way we do it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Indoctrination is your problem.

It really is my problem because I have to deal with people like you who are so hopelessly indoctrinated that you're incapable of individual thought.

 

[Rightguide]

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174
United States vs Miller Sawed offs aren't protected.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias; Congress could require registration of a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun if carried across state lines

Armor piercing rounds are effectively banned.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS95/rpt/olr/htm/95-R-0168.htm

I could go on and on, if we take the 2nd as written I should be able to legally own mustard gas, nukes, anything I can afford.

Oh yes, I have no doubt you could go on for hours with irrelevant remarks with no bearing on the Second Amendment's unqualified command embracing the individual right to keep and bear arms. Read Article I Section 8, there you will find the power to organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing the Militia. The Second Amendment is not needed for that purpose. The only reason it's mentioned in the Second Amendment is that it is about creating an individual right and therefore amending Article I Section 8. Remember the Bill of Rights is not a catalog of new government authority.

 

[Rightguide]

It really is my problem because I have to deal with people like you who are so hopelessly indoctrinated that you're incapable of individual thought.

No, more educated than you are. You are the one who is thinking outside of reality and calling it individual thought as if it were something admirable, when all it is is ignorance on your part.

 

[Rightguide]

The Second Amendment doesn't need to be rewritten. It just needs to be interpreted as written. It specifies a regulated militia, not civilians, and it doesn't specify what kinds of arms. We already limit the types of arms a civilian can have.

No it doesn't. Read Article I section 8. That is what creates the militia.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh yes, I have no doubt you could go on for hours with irrelevant remarks with no bearing on the Second Amendment's unqualified command embracing the individual right to keep and bear arms. Read Article I Section 8, there you will find the power to organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing the Militia. The Second Amendment is not needed for that purpose. The only reason it's mentioned in the Second Amendment is that it is about creating an individual right and therefore amending Article I Section 8. Remember the Bill of Rights is not a catalog of new government authority.

Its funny that you bring up A1S8 because it destroys what the court claimed about the right to own arms being tied directly to the militia. Which is clearly defined. They were basically a part of the government in a less than fully official way.

The Founders weren't ones to waste words, there was no need to amend A1S8 if that even really did that. Which honestly I'm not certain I buy to begin with. If you knew your history the Founders disagreed on if the the Bill of Rights was necessary clearly believing that you didn't need to spell this shit out. That's why they were passed so shortly after because they came to whatever compromise really happened.

 

[DeluxAuto]

No, more educated than you are. You are the one who is thinking outside of reality and calling it individual thought as if it were something admirable, when all it is is ignorance on your part.

You keep seeling us on how smart you are but none of us are dumb enough to buy your bullshit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, more educated than you are. You are the one who is thinking outside of reality and calling it individual thought as if it were something admirable, when all it is is ignorance on your part.

You might be more formally educated than me, you clearly are not as informed as I am however. You are heavily, heavily indoctrinated as all conservatives are.

 

[Rightguide]

Its funny that you bring up A1S8 because it destroys what the court claimed about the right to own arms being tied directly to the militia. Which is clearly defined. They were basically a part of the government in a less than fully official way.

The Founders weren't ones to waste words, there was no need to amend A1S8 if that even really did that. Which honestly I'm not certain I buy to begin with. If you knew your history the Founders disagreed on if the the Bill of Rights was necessary clearly believing that you didn't need to spell this shit out. That's why they were passed so shortly after because they came to whatever compromise really happened.

Some founders. it was the states that demanded the Bill of Rights prior to ratification.