Again I backup my posts with facts and links. Maybe your goal is to continue this bickering to divert the fact that you again have been called out and can't back up your claims. Now let's get back to the topic at hand. Why were fully automatic weapons banned?
In fact, I'm going to send you on your way the best way I know how. Much like the "Notice me" trolls down in the D&D before you, I'm going to withhold the attention you so desire by ignoring your posts from here on out. I've told you many times that I'm not really that fond of talking to those I have to break down everything for Barney style just to get you to follow along in conversation and yet you still keep up your "Notice me" shtick. Time to move on kiddo.
Gotta admit, I do miss some of the better posters that used to show up down here. Steel sharpens steel but wiping dog **** on steel does nothing productive.
LMAO so true. He can't backup his claims when he gets called out. It won't stop me from debunking his claims with facts.
Several of them result in loss of lives. Repealing prohibition probably led to as many or more deaths by DUI than the 2nd amendment allows. Prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure allow people to stockpile weapons, make bombs, etc. without the government catching them. Free speech allows people to recruit others to their cause. Jury trial rights protect people from punishment if they are sympathetic killers. The federal income tax was the claimed motive of that guy that flew his plane into the IRS office. There were a significant number of lynchings following the passage of the 13th amendment. The fourteenth amendment is what allows the second amendment to be applied to the states. Several of them. We don't allow voting restrictions on the basis of sex or age above 18. We don't allow slavery. We don't restrict the US government's ability to levy a federal income tax. We don't disallow trial by jury in felony cases. We don't disallow the right to counsel in criminal cases. In fact, the second amendment seems to get more restrictions put on it than the others. The post I was responding to literally said that the second amendment had no application in the current year. Strawman? I think not. Ralph is too young to be in the militia. The US Government defines the militia as every able bodied male citizen or citizen applicant between the ages of 17 and 45 and every female citizen who is a member of the National Guard. Regardless, the second amendment protects not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people.
It worked for regulations on fully automatic weapons. I don't see why it can't for semi automatic weapons and high capacity rounds.
My bad. A single event is not conclusive evidence. What is the definition of "close quarters" in terms of combat with guns? Why have you ignored the importance of magazine size?
I'm not sure about the official definition, but my definition is essentially damn near anything indoors specifically anything within 50 feet. When it comes to magazine size, you can get 15 round magazines for a certain .45 caliber handguns and 12 round magazines are common on .40 caliber handguns. Hell you can get 25 round magazines for .40 cal. The ability to conceal multiple handguns and the quick speed one can reload makes magazine capacity not that big a deal. For example, you have 2 .45 caliber handguns with 12 round magazines apiece you can kill 24 people before reloading.....and reloading takes a matter of seconds, same as an AR-15. In either scenario you can kill LOTS of people in a very short period of time, with handguns you are more likely to get very close before tipping anyone off whereas most people would see an AR-15 (as with any long gun) from a distance, it's not the most easily concealable thing. On top of that, the handguns are more efficient operating in an indoors environment where there aren't many large distances whereas the AR is the much better option. A situation where you have multiple targets at 50-200 yards (and potentially further) is perfect for an AR. The magazine capacity of handguns is the reason you'd pick a handgun over a shotgun (unless you had a shotgun that used large magazines or drums) but there's not enough of a difference to where you'd want to pick a less efficient weapon for that environment that is more difficult to conceal. I do agree that a single event is not conclusive evidence but I went through it in another thread and said how only 3 of the 15 deadliest school massacres involved "assault rifles" with the vast majority involving handguns. Also, if you look at the 2 deadliest school massacres involving AR-15's, in one of them, it could have been prevented with armed guards because he had to shoot his way into the school as it was locked. In the second, if there was armed guards who weren't cowards, the damage could have been significantly reduced. As such, I see those 2 as outliers and they are the only school massacres where more than 5 people were killed that involved AR-15's. If you allow a gunman to go on a lengthy shooting spree inside a school unchallenged, they are going to kill a ton of people no matter what they are armed with.
Agreed, a handgun is more 'deadly' in the sense it's easier to conceal. Why is a handgun inherently better at shorter distances? Maneuverability?
That's a large part of the reason, it's easier to aim and switch quickly between targets with a handgun at short distances than it is a long gun. Honestly the only long gun you want in a situation with short distances and multiple targets is a shotgun. That's not to say that an AR can't still do the job, it's just not the best weapon to use in that situation.
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. It clearly states the right of the people as part of a well regulated militia. By your own definition, the 2nd amendment isn't applicable to people over the age of 45. Most of these 50 year old good ole boys with 50 guns own them illegally, by your own definition. And certainly well regulated means some kind of yearly physical, some basic marksmanship capability and training. You can't have it every which way.
Funny how I was talking to a gun nut the day after this happened. He was complaining about the lack of media coverage over this shooting versus the Florida shooting, claiming that this wasn't getting coverage even though a guy with a gun stopped a kid from carrying out mass carnage. I pointed out the fact that they hadn't confirmed that the cop actually killed the kid, which meant there was a good chance it was a targeted shooting and the kid killed himself. He dismissed it as blasphemy because it didn't fit his agenda. Then, he said he prayed for me everyday as I was a soft target because my work does not allow guns into my building. I work at a cancer center.... Turns out that I was right and he was just a gun nut with an agenda....funny how that happens.. I'm all for having armed guards in schools. I think they can keep these things from happening, but if anyone thinks that this shooting was further proof that we need to arm teachers, they're just nuts.
Not only is this a really stupid misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment, the SCOTUS has spelled out that this stupid misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong. The right to keep and bear arms is a right of the people just like any other right. It being a right of the people has nothing to do with a person being in a militia. The reason the part about a militia is mentioned is spelling out one of the reasons why this right must not be infringed upon....but that doesn't mean that it's the only reason. Anyway, you anti-civil liberty authoritarians keep it up, being honest about this kind of craziness is the best way to drive away voters.
Yes, that is the text of the amendment. No it doesn't. It clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. It also states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It does not say that only those people in the militia can keep and bear arms. It does not say the people can keep and bear arms, but only for the purpose of serving in the militia. It isn't my definition, it is the definition created by Congress. That would only be true if everything was illegal except what actually appears in a Constitutional amendment. That is not how it works. The bill of rights establishes the minimal level of freedom that Congress must observe. Just because there is no amendment allowing automobiles, doesn't mean that everyone driving a car is doing so immediately. Well regulated, at the time, mostly meant you were able to march in formation and wouldn't rape and pillage the locals.
This is an excellent example of how strict constitutionalists are willfully ignorant when it suits them. You keep telling me what it does not say, I'm telling you what it does say. The right is stipulated as being related to a well regulated militia which you stated is defined as able bodied men under 45 years old. If you need to parse a clearly stated sentence to re-define its meaning then you're probably full of it.
