If more guns makes a country safer

[Daryl Hunt]

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15 so any further banning of the vast majority of fire arms including asult rifles would be unconstitutional

Using the term "Assault Rifle" is unconstitutional as it also can be dragging in almost any semi auto conventional hunting rifle. The legal phrase of "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been found to be constitutional in regulating one specific weapon. Your common use at that time doesn't hold water. Heller V DC was all about the right to own and possess a fully functional handgun for home defense in your home. It wasn't about licensing or registration. It was about a normal responsible handgun of normal size and use. I won't go into the whole thing because you won't read that either but you really need to stop listening to anyone that tells you any different. I know you won't. Your Cult won't allow it.

 

[Blues Man]

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

In all cases a semiautomatic rifle falls under the definition of normal in regards to firearms

All an AR 15 is is a semiautomatic rifle

 

[2aguy]

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

Moron...... you have been shown the Heller decision over and over again and in particular this statement....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


And here is Scalia stating in another opinion that the AR-15, by name...is a protected rifle as are all rifles like it...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15 so any further banning of the vast majority of fire arms including asult rifles would be unconstitutional

Using the term "Assault Rifle" is unconstitutional as it also can be dragging in almost any semi auto conventional hunting rifle. The legal phrase of "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been found to be constitutional in regulating one specific weapon. Your common use at that time doesn't hold water. Heller V DC was all about the right to own and possess a fully functional handgun for home defense in your home. It wasn't about licensing or registration. It was about a normal responsible handgun of normal size and use. I won't go into the whole thing because you won't read that either but you really need to stop listening to anyone that tells you any different. I know you won't. Your Cult won't allow it.

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand the issue....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

There are now over 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....

 

[TRFjr]

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

repeat sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
the AR-15 is one of the most popular fire arm sold so it fits squally into the category of “in common use at the time”

 

[2aguy]

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

repeat sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
the AR-15 is one of the most popular fire arm sold so it fits squally into the category of “in common use at the time”

And as to "dangerous and unusual," Justice Alito already dealt with that line of attack....

Caetano v Massachusetts

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]



Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

repeat sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
the AR-15 is one of the most popular fire arm sold so it fits squally into the category of “in common use at the time”

You just grabbed the part that looks like it agrees with you. Let's look at the whole paragraph in the ruling and you will see that it says something completely different.

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.

What that means is, if the community finds that an AR-15 is deemed a dangerous and unusual weapon they can prohibit it. But if you read the rest of Heller V you will see that it excludes conventional handguns from that exclusion. But in order to prohibit the AR-15, the law prohibiting the AR-15 must be clear and concise and not include the entire class of firearms. That means, mini-14s and such cannot be included. You can't use the phrase "Assault Weapon". You must use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones". If you are going to use Heller V for a source, you may want to use all of it instead of just one out of context partial sentence.

Now you can go back to waiting for your next savior to ride to your rescue to overturn not only the court system but the legislation system as well. Make sure that insane person riding in on that white steed isn't willy nilly firing his six guns or he will be arrested long before he gets the chance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Society deems what is "Reasonable" just like Society deems what is a "Home" through building codes. Reasonable is set by "Laws" which are set by Society.

The problem with allowing society to determine these norms is that people like you and the OP get a say in it.

Nonsense.

Society codifies what’s reasonable and appropriate through laws and measures enacted by our elected representatives; as long as those laws and measures comport with Second Amendment case law, no rights are violated, no liberties are placed in jeopardy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OP lives where thugs with guns, dealin dope post videos on social media every day waving automatic wepaons and high cap pistols rappin and braggin about what "MF'er" they gonna cap next"....

Then blames it all on the NRA and Law abiding good men.

Never occurs to OP it could be Democrat policies.....

The NRA is a civil rights organization designed to protect our constitution. Their members rarely if ever shoot anyone. The people who shoot people are a different group of people.

Why do you try to make them the boogyman?

The NRA is an organization made up of liars and demagogues who have nothing but contempt for civil rights and the Constitution.

The NRA’s advocacy of insurrectionist dogma in conflict with the Constitution is one of many examples.

 

[2aguy]

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

repeat sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
the AR-15 is one of the most popular fire arm sold so it fits squally into the category of “in common use at the time”

You just grabbed the part that looks like it agrees with you. Let's look at the whole paragraph in the ruling and you will see that it says something completely different.

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.

What that means is, if the community finds that an AR-15 is deemed a dangerous and unusual weapon they can prohibit it. But if you read the rest of Heller V you will see that it excludes conventional handguns from that exclusion. But in order to prohibit the AR-15, the law prohibiting the AR-15 must be clear and concise and not include the entire class of firearms. That means, mini-14s and such cannot be included. You can't use the phrase "Assault Weapon". You must use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones". If you are going to use Heller V for a source, you may want to use all of it instead of just one out of context partial sentence.

Now you can go back to waiting for your next savior to ride to your rescue to overturn not only the court system but the legislation system as well. Make sure that insane person riding in on that white steed isn't willy nilly firing his six guns or he will be arrested long before he gets the chance.

Moron.....he states the limits...and in that where does it limit weapon type? Where does it limit AR-15 ownership? You moron....

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.

Then you ignore this....you moron...since the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States with over 18 million in private hands...

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.

And Alito, in Caetano v Massachusetts, which came after Heller details "Dangerous and Unusual".....so you are wrong again....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15 so any further banning of the vast majority of fire arms including asult rifles would be unconstitutional

Wrong.

The Heller Court addressed solely the DC handgun ban; it made no determination as to the constitutionality of laws prohibiting the possessing of AR 15s, it made no determination as to whether AR 15s are ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

 

[2aguy]

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15 so any further banning of the vast majority of fire arms including asult rifles would be unconstitutional

Wrong.

The Heller Court addressed solely the DC handgun ban; it made no determination as to the constitutionality of laws prohibiting the possessing of AR 15s, it made no determination as to whether AR 15s are ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

Yes....it did, you hack.....and then Scalia went on to state in Friedman v Highland Park that the AR-15 rifle, by name..........is protected.........and Alito, in Caetano v Massachusetts states that these rifles do not fall into the dangerous and unusual category..... so you are either ignorant...or lying...

Heller....protects these rifles...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


Caetano, protects these rifles...



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Scalia...writing in this opinion after he wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v Heller.......



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

There are now over 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands...it is the most popular civilian rifle in this country...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

In all cases a semiautomatic rifle falls under the definition of normal in regards to firearms

All an AR 15 is is a semiautomatic rifle

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

Only the possession of handguns enjoys Constitutional protections, not the possession of semi-automatic rifles and carbines – regardless their appearance, configuration, or design.

Current Second Amendment case law holds that a fully automatic M 16 is dangerous and unusual, falling outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. The case law further holds that because an AR 15 is similar enough to an M 16, it is likewise beyond the scope of the Second Amendment; that the former is semi-automatic only and the latter is select fire being legally irrelevant.

Now, we can agree that such a holding is ignorant and wrong – but that doesn’t change the fact of law.

The problem is a Supreme Court unwilling to hear and rule on an AWB case to make a final determination as to the Constitutional status of the AR 15 – be it ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use.’

 

[2aguy]

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

In all cases a semiautomatic rifle falls under the definition of normal in regards to firearms

All an AR 15 is is a semiautomatic rifle

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

Only the possession of handguns enjoys Constitutional protections, not the possession of semi-automatic rifles and carbines – regardless their appearance, configuration, or design.

Current Second Amendment case law holds that a fully automatic M 16 is dangerous and unusual, falling outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. The case law further holds that because an AR 15 is similar enough to an M 16, it is likewise beyond the scope of the Second Amendment; that the former is semi-automatic only and the latter is select fire being legally irrelevant.

Now, we can agree that such a holding is ignorant and wrong – but that doesn’t change the fact of law.

The problem is a Supreme Court unwilling to hear and rule on an AWB case to make a final determination as to the Constitutional status of the AR 15 – be it ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use.’

You are either lying or insane......

The AR-15 has not been deemed unusual or dangerous and I cited Heller, Caetano and Scalia's opinion in Friedman v Highland Park that states that the AR-15 by name, is covered and protected........and don't give me the crap that Scalia wrote a minority opinion in Friedman....he wrote the Majority Opinion in Heller and his minority opinion stated the court should hear Friedman.....so his opinion has actual weight in this discussion....you twerp....

Heller, Caetano, Miller, and Scalia in Friedman all protect the semi-automatic rifle....and your saying they don't makes you insane or a liar...

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.

In all cases a semiautomatic rifle falls under the definition of normal in regards to firearms

All an AR 15 is is a semiautomatic rifle

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

Only the possession of handguns enjoys Constitutional protections, not the possession of semi-automatic rifles and carbines – regardless their appearance, configuration, or design.

Current Second Amendment case law holds that a fully automatic M 16 is dangerous and unusual, falling outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. The case law further holds that because an AR 15 is similar enough to an M 16, it is likewise beyond the scope of the Second Amendment; that the former is semi-automatic only and the latter is select fire being legally irrelevant.

Now, we can agree that such a holding is ignorant and wrong – but that doesn’t change the fact of law.

The problem is a Supreme Court unwilling to hear and rule on an AWB case to make a final determination as to the Constitutional status of the AR 15 – be it ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use.’

Heller....protects these rifles...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


Caetano, protects these rifles...



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Scalia...writing in this opinion after he wrote the majority opinion in D.C. v Heller.......



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[sparky]

I guess the focus is only going to be on the 'regulated' part of the 2nd's 'regulated militia' when it's convenient for posters to debate it here......

~S~

 

[Issa]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

You will more likely be killed by your own gun.

Just like you will be more likely to get killed in your own car, or get killed in your own swimming pool.

You people on the left are constantly telling us how drugs should be legal, and for those that kill themselves with the drugs, that's their problem. But when it comes to guns, make guns illegal so you don't irresponsibly accidentally kill yourself with it.

True someone can go on a rampage and throw bunch of pills and kill dozens.
Dude the world is laughing at you, more guns more deaths.....why are you so thick ?

 

[2aguy]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

You will more likely be killed by your own gun.

Just like you will be more likely to get killed in your own car, or get killed in your own swimming pool.

You people on the left are constantly telling us how drugs should be legal, and for those that kill themselves with the drugs, that's their problem. But when it comes to guns, make guns illegal so you don't irresponsibly accidentally kill yourself with it.

True someone can go on a rampage and throw bunch of pills and kill dozens.
Dude the world is laughing at you, more guns more deaths.....why are you so thick ?

Except that isn't the case...you dumb ass. Nothing in the real world supports what you just posted......

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades

Why are you so thick?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

You will more likely be killed by your own gun.

Just like you will be more likely to get killed in your own car, or get killed in your own swimming pool.

You people on the left are constantly telling us how drugs should be legal, and for those that kill themselves with the drugs, that's their problem. But when it comes to guns, make guns illegal so you don't irresponsibly accidentally kill yourself with it.

True someone can go on a rampage and throw bunch of pills and kill dozens.
Dude the world is laughing at you, more guns more deaths.....why are you so thick ?

When a person sells another drugs, it kills other people.

 

[Issa]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

You will more likely be killed by your own gun.

Just like you will be more likely to get killed in your own car, or get killed in your own swimming pool.

You people on the left are constantly telling us how drugs should be legal, and for those that kill themselves with the drugs, that's their problem. But when it comes to guns, make guns illegal so you don't irresponsibly accidentally kill yourself with it.

True someone can go on a rampage and throw bunch of pills and kill dozens.
Dude the world is laughing at you, more guns more deaths.....why are you so thick ?

When a person sells another drugs, it kills other people.

Apples and oranges. How can one use the drugs in a moment of anger to harm others like guns?
Because of millions of guns in the US there are thousands of deaths, school shootings, domestic homicides and so much more than other countries with less or no guns ? How did i know , I've lived in one and visited many with hardly any guns.
In some countries a gun incident is a national news story for days, in the US is a meh!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

If free speech makes a country safer...………..