San Jose railyard shooting....no AR-15 used, so press loses interest quickly. He used 3 hand guns.

[bodecea]

Moved this to breaking news...

That would be sad if the NRA can't fund-raise off of this.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yawn, guy, 40,000 Americans die every year from guns. Very few of them are "evil people".

Yawn, girl. 40,000 Americans die in motor vehicle accidents every year. Very few of them are "evil people."

Ban cars.

But, only the cars that look scary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Semi automatics are common firearms, protected by the 2nd amendment.

"Common weapons" are not mentioned in the 2A. That's a Scalia term of art

It would limit people to centuries old technology to defend themselves when criminals would not be limited as well?

If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or pump shotgun, you can't defend yourself.

arms were mentioned. a semi automatic is an arm.

And your last statement is simple bullshit.

Of course once the semi autos are gone you will next go after the rest, because you are a gun grabbing pussy.

And yet machine guns and rocket launchers are heavily regulated and banned.

They are also “arms”

Rocket launchers are artillery, not arms.

limiting machine guns is about as far as I will go with limits on the 2nd. A semi automatic handgun is covered by the 2nd amendment, as is a semi automatic rifle.

Machine guns should be owned by every able American.

Machine guns or Valhalla!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The thing is the bans that are proposed always go after ANY semi-automatic rifle, leaving people with bolt, lever or pump actions only. Plus they usually try to include handguns, meaning only revolvers would be legal.

And the downside to that would be what?

When the government bans all illegal weapons from getting in the hands of criminals, then those same assholes can talk to me about gun control...Fucking moron..

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or pump shotgun, you can't defend yourself.

Are you some sort of expert?

No?

Then, fuck off. I will listen to experts and use what I am comfortable using. If that makes you shit your britches, then YOU have a problem. Hoplophobe.

 

[martybegan]

Semi automatics are common firearms, protected by the 2nd amendment.

"Common weapons" are not mentioned in the 2A. That's a Scalia term of art

It would limit people to centuries old technology to defend themselves when criminals would not be limited as well?

If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or pump shotgun, you can't defend yourself.

arms were mentioned. a semi automatic is an arm.

And your last statement is simple bullshit.

Of course once the semi autos are gone you will next go after the rest, because you are a gun grabbing pussy.

And yet machine guns and rocket launchers are heavily regulated and banned.

They are also “arms”

Rocket launchers are artillery, not arms.

limiting machine guns is about as far as I will go with limits on the 2nd. A semi automatic handgun is covered by the 2nd amendment, as is a semi automatic rifle.

Machine guns should be owned by every able American.

Machine guns or Valhalla!

That I disagree on. Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Somebody tell the Military that m249s are not arms. They have been mistakenly using them as arms for far too long.

 

[2aguy]

If just one of those people at the railyard was allowed to conceal carry, things might of ended differently. But alas, it isnt about having normal US citizens being able to defend themselves from Evil people who wish to harm them, it is about controlling people so Evil government can harm them..

Yawn, guy, 40,000 Americans die every year from guns. Very few of them are "evil people".

Gun murder....10,235 in 2019 according to the FBI.

Over 70-80% of the victim are criminals murdered by other criminals...the majority of the rest of the victims are friends, family, and associates of the criminals shot by mistake.

On the other side...normal, good people, use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent beatings, rapes, robberies and murders....according to the Centers for Disease Control....or....1.5 million times according to the Dept. of Justice research.

 

[martybegan]

Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Somebody tell the Military that m249s are not arms. They have been mistakenly using them as arms for far too long.

I know we disagree on this, but a machine gun was originally a crew served weapon.

 

[AMart]

Semi automatics are common firearms, protected by the 2nd amendment.

"Common weapons" are not mentioned in the 2A. That's a Scalia term of art

It would limit people to centuries old technology to defend themselves when criminals would not be limited as well?

If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or pump shotgun, you can't defend yourself.

arms were mentioned. a semi automatic is an arm.

And your last statement is simple bullshit.

Of course once the semi autos are gone you will next go after the rest, because you are a gun grabbing pussy.

And yet machine guns and rocket launchers are heavily regulated and banned.

They are also “arms”

Rocket launchers are artillery, not arms.

limiting machine guns is about as far as I will go with limits on the 2nd. A semi automatic handgun is covered by the 2nd amendment, as is a semi automatic rifle.

Machine guns should be owned by every able American.

Machine guns or Valhalla!

That I disagree on. Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Full auto doesn't have to be a 50 cal or any crew served system.

 

[AMart]

Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Somebody tell the Military that m249s are not arms. They have been mistakenly using them as arms for far too long.

I know we disagree on this, but a machine gun was originally a crew served weapon.

A full auto M-16 isn't a crew served weapon.

 

[2aguy]

Semi automatics are common firearms, protected by the 2nd amendment.

"Common weapons" are not mentioned in the 2A. That's a Scalia term of art

It would limit people to centuries old technology to defend themselves when criminals would not be limited as well?

If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or pump shotgun, you can't defend yourself.

No......the Second Amendment states ".....bear arms...."

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/14-10078_aplc.pdf
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]

-----

----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.

 

[2aguy]

What is wrong with you? Nobody in the US needs an AR-15 or anything similar. You can't hunt with them.

Tell me what the purpose of nonsense like this thread is. Gun nut-ery has gone way too far in this country. If you guys need these weapons to recover your masculinity, you probably never had any in the first place.

Yes...people hunt with them, you doofus......and you don't get to decide which guns are covered.......if the U.S. military has a rifle, then the citizens need to have that rifle as well....since we are a free people, not serfs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Somebody tell the Military that m249s are not arms. They have been mistakenly using them as arms for far too long.

I know we disagree on this, but a machine gun was originally a crew served weapon.

I don't see anything in the context or actual text of any founding documents limiting the right to keep and bear arms to NON-crew-served weapons.

 

[martybegan]

Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Somebody tell the Military that m249s are not arms. They have been mistakenly using them as arms for far too long.

I know we disagree on this, but a machine gun was originally a crew served weapon.

A full auto M-16 isn't a crew served weapon.

agreed. I can see the government's position on restricting full auto.

In any event if the shit hits the fan converting for someone who knows what to do is easy, and by that time the government wont' be in a position to care anyway.

 

[2aguy]

We need sensible gun laws like Nazi Germany, Mao's China or Stalin's USSR.

Uh, Frank, the Nazis loosened Germany's gun laws. It was easier to get a gun in Nazi Germany than it was in Weimar Germany or Imperial Germany or even today's Federal Republic of Germany.

Do you know what the German's didn't do with those guns? They didn't try to stop the SS from taking away one of their neighbors. SUCKS TO BE HIM!!!

What they did do with those guns? Organize into the Volksgrenadiers made up of old men and little boys to fight the allies

Moron, the national socialists loosened gun laws for national socialist party members.....and banned Jews and the political enemies of the national socialists from having weapons....you lying sack of shit......you know this, and you still lie.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Semi automatics are common firearms, protected by the 2nd amendment.

"Common weapons" are not mentioned in the 2A. That's a Scalia term of art

It would limit people to centuries old technology to defend themselves when criminals would not be limited as well?

If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or pump shotgun, you can't defend yourself.

arms were mentioned. a semi automatic is an arm.

And your last statement is simple bullshit.

Of course once the semi autos are gone you will next go after the rest, because you are a gun grabbing pussy.

And yet machine guns and rocket launchers are heavily regulated and banned.

They are also “arms”

Rocket launchers are artillery, not arms.

limiting machine guns is about as far as I will go with limits on the 2nd. A semi automatic handgun is covered by the 2nd amendment, as is a semi automatic rifle.

Machine guns should be owned by every able American.

Machine guns or Valhalla!

That I disagree on. Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Full auto doesn't have to be a 50 cal or any crew served system.

But, why should we let government ban those weapons?

Machine guns for me, but not for thee.

FUCK THAT!!!

 

[2aguy]

What is wrong with you? Nobody in the US needs an AR-15 or anything similar. You can't hunt with them.

Tell me what the purpose of nonsense like this thread is. Gun nut-ery has gone way too far in this country. If you guys need these weapons to recover your masculinity, you probably never had any in the first place.

The thing is the bans that are proposed always go after ANY semi-automatic rifle, leaving people with bolt, lever or pump actions only. Plus they usually try to include handguns, meaning only revolvers would be legal.

Yep, I was wondering how they were going to ban Pistol Caliber Carbines, since they fire pistol rounds, not rifle rounds.....that idiot up for the ATF just explained how they are going to do it...

 

[martybegan]

Crew style machine guns aren't arms.

Somebody tell the Military that m249s are not arms. They have been mistakenly using them as arms for far too long.

I know we disagree on this, but a machine gun was originally a crew served weapon.

I don't see anything in the context or actual text of any founding documents limiting the right to keep and bear arms to NON-crew-served weapons.

I don't see anything about howitzers either, but a howitzer wasn't considered an "arm" at the time.

An arm at the time for militia service was a rifled musket, at our current time it's a semi auto rifle. Any ban on semi auto rifled flies against the concept of the 2nd amendment and is unconstitutional.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In any event if the shit hits the fan converting for someone who knows what to do is easy, and by that time the government wont' be in a position to care anyway.

It's not nearly as easy as one might think. How many machinists do you know?

I don't give a shit about government's position on full auto. FUCK THEM. They work for us, not the reverse.