Rigby5
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2017
- 31,996
- 10,784
The SC and pretty much every seriously taken constitutional expert disagrees. But the reality is that no matter what regulation the govt can propose to AR-15 like weapons, the regulation cannot just "ban" one class of weapons becuase that would be pretty ineffective in curbing some crimes.Based on personal preference. Not anything written in the ConstitutionThe Heller Court concerned solely the regulation of handguns – not long guns.As per Miller then. That shot gun and bolt action rifle have 2A protection. The AR does notCAN various other weapons be used for mass killing? YesThe dozens killed in Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas, and numerous other places would disagreeNor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.
The only shooting where a rifle makes a difference was vegas.....where the shooter was shooting over several hundred yards.....
The distances involved in mass public shootings are so small that shotguns and pistols are no different from rifles....you doofus....
There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.
And had the crowd not been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...
At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......
Boulder, rifle 10 killed
A 7 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 12, like the Navy Yard shooter...
A 5 shot, pump action shotgun..... murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....
9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...
2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....
double barreled shotgun, and a .22 caliber bolt action rifle...and killed 13 people, like the shooter in Cumbria, England did....
That rifle has no special advantage in a mass public shooting.
But assault weapons make it so much easier and this deadly... which is why machine guns are so heavily regulated and banned
The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or machine gun...
The AR-15 is not a weapon of war....and has never been used by the U.S. military.
The 5 shot, pump action shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle are actual military weapons, in current use by the U.S. military.
In theory, per Heller, a jurisdiction could ban the possession of bolt-action rifles and shotguns – not that it would happen, of course.
The lower courts have upheld state bans on AR 15s, citing that the states have a legitimate interest in promoting public safety.
Nope.....in Friedman, Thomas and Scalia, who both were on the majority in Heller, stated that promoting public safety does not allow you to prohibit weapons that are in common use........
Nothing written in the Constitution prohibits some state or local restrictions on weapons, but clearly all federal restrictions are totally and completely banned.
The words "shall not be infringed" does not allow for any federal restrictions at all, in any way.
There could be lots of reasonable local infringements, like only over 18, only at home, only unloaded in public, no machine guns, etc.
Any law is an infringement, but some local infringement is reasonable.
Any federal law is not reasonable.
Clearly what is needed in Alaska is up to Alaskans and not New Yorkers.
Yes I realized the majority of the so called experts disagree with me, but the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal jurisdiction.
No it wasn't. Bill of Rights was in part a response to specific calls for Constitutional protections for personal liberties.
A state can't violate your constitutional rights and your opinion to the contrary is at odds with reality.
No, it was considered that a list of rights be included in the Constitution, but that was rejected on the fact rights are infinite, and if you start a list, it not only will always be incomplete, but everyone will start to assume there is no other right. And clearly that is wrong. Rights are infinite in number.
Instead the Bill of Rights was decided to just make strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.
But there are a few amendments that do seem like individual rights, like to a fair and speedy trial of your peers.
While I agree a state can't arbitrarily violate your rights, they can limit them when needed in order to protect the rights of others.
That is obvious in that you can be arrested if you violate the rights of others.
Arresting you does violate your rights.
But the rights of others is what authorizes your arrest, not any government power.