LET'S BAN GUNS!

[The Conservative]

[img]22196351_10155105891200914_167071437011631394_n.jpg[/img]

TSA
Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer
bollards installed in front of most public buildings.

And yet, you have not even responded to why people blame guns when someone kills with them, but not the other items, seriously... let's be realistic here... or is that a problem?

[de officiis]

I’m not interested in a full repeal of the amendment. It does need to be redefined though, since we don’t have a fucking militia.

Either allow all military hardware to civilians, and watch the carnage, or define whatever you want to, to take away crowd-killing weapons. I don’t care what the definition is, since we always get dragged back into semantics and claims of expertise.

Should the Vegas shooter have had access to an RPG for freedom? Why not an M1 Abrams? Why is one weapon acceptable, and not another?

The reason is crowd-killing ability. Just be consistent, at the minimum. Sell all of your crazy shit to civilians, or leave only the hunting gear. This current half-ass reaction cycle is infuriating.

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1267&p=2721&hilit=Heller#p2717

See Paragraph 2...

2. 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. Pp. 54-56.

See, again though, they refuse to define wtf they're talking about. What, exactly, is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon?? Weapons aren't, by definition, dangerous?

The SCOTUS is not a super-legislature. It's obligation is to resolve the issues in the cases brought before it. It is left up to the Congress and the state legislatures to work out such details. Here is the actual text from the opinion (what you have already read was merely a summary).

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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. 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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.

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, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause  and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-2817, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 678-679, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268, *94-97, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497.

[DBTrek]

[Viktorthepirate]

[The Conservative]

I've seen that used for several things... including the army

[SuburbanFarmer]

[img]22196351_10155105891200914_167071437011631394_n.jpg[/img]

TSA
Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer
bollards installed in front of most public buildings.

And yet, you have not even responded to why people blame guns when someone kills with them, but not the other items, seriously... let's be realistic here... or is that a problem?

... instead, I posted the restrictions placed on those other items, after they were used in attacks. If anything, guns are specially-privileged weapons of destruction. They aren't a special target, they're the most protected thing that's ever been used to kill a crowd of people.

[SuburbanFarmer]

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1267&p=2721&hilit=Heller#p2717

See Paragraph 2...

2. 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. Pp. 54-56.

See, again though, they refuse to define wtf they're talking about. What, exactly, is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon?? Weapons aren't, by definition, dangerous?

The SCOTUS is not a super-legislature. It's obligation is to resolve the issues in the cases brought before it. It is left up to the Congress and the state legislatures to work out such details. Here is the actual text from the opinion (what you have already read was merely a summary).

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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. 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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.

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, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause  and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-2817, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 678-679, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268, *94-97, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497.

Nice.. I appreciate the info, even if I don't have time to look at the actual cases.

What stands out to me is this:

the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time."

Wouldn't the weapons in use be defined by what is allowed by law? Also, what weapons are to be considered 'in use' today? For hunting? SWAT teams? Military use?

[The Conservative]

TSA
Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer
bollards installed in front of most public buildings.

And yet, you have not even responded to why people blame guns when someone kills with them, but not the other items, seriously... let's be realistic here... or is that a problem?

... instead, I posted the restrictions placed on those other items, after they were used in attacks. If anything, guns are specially-privileged weapons of destruction. They aren't a special target, they're the most protected thing that's ever been used to kill a crowd of people.

Guns are tools, only those that think they are weapons are uneducated.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And yet, you have not even responded to why people blame guns when someone kills with them, but not the other items, seriously... let's be realistic here... or is that a problem?

... instead, I posted the restrictions placed on those other items, after they were used in attacks. If anything, guns are specially-privileged weapons of destruction. They aren't a special target, they're the most protected thing that's ever been used to kill a crowd of people.

Guns are tools, only those that think they are weapons are uneducated.

Name one other use for a firearm, than killing something.

[Montegriffo]

And yet, you have not even responded to why people blame guns when someone kills with them, but not the other items, seriously... let's be realistic here... or is that a problem?

... instead, I posted the restrictions placed on those other items, after they were used in attacks. If anything, guns are specially-privileged weapons of destruction. They aren't a special target, they're the most protected thing that's ever been used to kill a crowd of people.

Guns are tools, only those that think they are weapons are uneducated.

Quick someone get on the phone to NATO, they've built a whole army equipped with guns and apparently guns aren't weapons. Barely dangerous at all really, just tools for killing things with.