Very few of us will suffer new regulations, as we do not own assault weapons.
Half of those with a gun in the household (50%) say allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous for citizens, fewer (34%) say this makes this country safer.
The Moderate Voice (http://s.tt/1xxKT)
Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/171253/...eapons-make-us-less-safe/#8Gmc5ediIqqUXZGy.99
The Moderate Voice (http://s.tt/1xxKT)Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/171253/...eapons-make-us-less-safe/#8Gmc5ediIqqUXZGy.99
Very few of us will suffer new regulations, as we do not own assault weapons.
Half of those with a gun in the household (50%) say allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous for citizens, fewer (34%) say this makes this country safer.
Read more at http://themoderatevoice.com/171253/...eapons-make-us-less-safe/#8Gmc5ediIqqUXZGy.99
Assault weapons? What is that?
Essentially an AR 15 is just a rifle, its black and out looks different but it fires a rifle round, many guns fire the same round. The reason why the military doesn't use a more powerful weapon like a deer rifle is because the need to over penetrate is not necessary. If I took my 30.06 and shot it at a brick wall it would go clean through. The tiny little bullet the AR fires isn't that powerful, its a '22 caliber.
Is like banning a black sports car because it its scary looking and many people die in traffic. The term "assault rifle" has no meaning.
It's possible that Democrats will reinstate the assault weapons ban and limit magazine capacity, if, and it's a big if, they can get such legislation past the Republican controlled House. Liberals care about one thing only: limiting the freedom of individuals in the name of mob rule.
Not in the united states. Otherwise there is no constitution.
the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That doesn't say make up meaningless nonsense to select rifles that are black and look different but are just like another rifle to get them made illegal.
Once the right is infringed upon the bill of rights is no more, if it doesn't mean anything it can't mean something
"An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridg
Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. In common parlance, the term is used to describe any of various automatic and semi-automatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge and is frequently conflated with assault rifle (a firearm with full-automatic capability). Unlike the term assault rifle, however, the term 'assault weapon' has no consistent or specific definition and is, therefore, subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military firearms.[1] In the United States, there is a variety of statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2] Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[3]e rather than a rifle cartridge.
"
Playing the symantics game does not change the meaning in my reply.
The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). The prohibition against "infringement" does not preclude "regulation." Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.
Fully automatics were never legal to begin with. The guy that shot the kids in Connecticut used an AR15 not an m16 the AR 15 isn't a fully automatic.
You are playing semantics, pretending there is a such thing as assault weapon.
The federal assault weapon ban was total hogwash too. it banned nothing. All guns are useful in combat. This is the most rediculouse bag of silliness I have ever heard. If the guy that shot up sandy hook had not had a gun with a black scary looking appearance he still could have killed people with say a Marlin lever Acton rifle. I guess its okay to assault people with a hunting rifle.
Assault weapon is a meaningless term. All the citations from wikipedia will not give it meaning. It only means something to people who don't know a thing about fire arms.
Regulation is infringement sorry.
What regulation would you have. Some silly term about assault weapons being banned. This is so easily stepped around because this only means something to fools. I can assault people with a hurting rifle just as easy.
Registry will not work, I will not register my firearms. nobody else will. Nobody knows I have them. There isn't enough manpower.
More regulation is never the answer. The government is a massive waste only bent on userping the people. You can't do this you must pay that. So no regulation is lifting liberty four the reason of having regulation.
I reject regulation thus is the nation of freedom, not regulation.
No, that is not correct. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:
‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond 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. (FN 26 Omitted)
‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008).
‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. (Citation Omitted) For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond 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. (FN 26 Omitted)
‘We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." (Citations Omitted) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008).
there are plenty of limits. Can't own a fully automatic, can't walk into a kindergarden class with a twelve guage. Pistols, shot guns and rifles have to fit these standards. Its illegal to brandish a weapon. There are thousands of laws.
Making one about scary black rifles will not change a thing aside from infringing on several rights.
That doesn't mean more would not improve the situation and reduce risk.
He already showed you why it doesn't necessarily infringe on any rights as per the SCOTUS's own view. And at the end of the day the interpretation of the Constitutionality of a law falls to the SCOTUS- as defined by the Constitution.
You were talking about "rights", now you are talking about freedom. They are different things...
And also, your statement that regulation is less freedom is not always true. I can easily argue that something like making murder legal is less regulation, but it sure won't lead to more freedom. Remember, the government is not the only source of coercion or pressure.
Okay, I am just saying you can't make an absolute claim like that- you didn't qualify it with a margin at which it is not true.
And I am not sure rights inherently insure freedom either. If someone said there is a right to an iphone, that would probably hinder freedom more than garner it. This is why you can't just make the claim that less gun regulation or the "right" to own any gun is necessarily pro-freedom. You need more evidence or data to back that claim up and it depends on how you define freedom. But beyond freedom, maximizing utility is the underlying goal in my opinion. And when it comes to that I think some gun regulation is certainly good as it prevents deaths.
Constitutional rights not fictitious bogus silly hypothetical rights. The first amendment insures or religious freedom, also or freedom of speech, and of the press and to peaceably assemble. If that right wasn't there there would be no entity that would ensure or freedoms. And yes freedom of speech has a limit, like not yelling fire in a theater.
Take the second amendment, saying you can't own a rifle that is black and light weight, with a strap on it because retards think they are more deadly, is like saying you can practice all religions but Islam because retards think they are more deadly.
Similar to shouting fire in a theater that isn't burning you can't wave your gun around in a theater.
No. Your rights exist only by law. There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law. We live subject to the rule of law. That is the provision of the Constitution that is the foundation of our government and font of our individual rights and liberty. That is the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.
Similar threads
