The good guy, the civilian...used an AR-15 to stop the killer since the police weren't there....

[Jamesonrules]

Military weapon

military weapon

military weapon

NOT a military weapon

Care to list many of the weapons of war you are not allowed to own?

No....according to the 2nd Amendment we get to own weapons of war that are bearable arms.....sorry asswipe......the Supreme Court already ruled on this....

That is obviously not true. And the Supreme Court has never said that. It says you have the right, but limited, to firearms and a limited set of other arms. Not just anything the government has.

Wrong....

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



--------------


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

--------

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.

--------

--

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

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


-------------

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

You are a gun nut. You have no understanding of weapons or law. What you believe is simply untrue. There are many weapons that one can bear that you are not allowed to own here. And there is no reason you should be allowed to.

 

[2aguy]

Military weapon

military weapon

military weapon

NOT a military weapon

Care to list many of the weapons of war you are not allowed to own?

No....according to the 2nd Amendment we get to own weapons of war that are bearable arms.....sorry asswipe......the Supreme Court already ruled on this....

That is obviously not true. And the Supreme Court has never said that. It says you have the right, but limited, to firearms and a limited set of other arms. Not just anything the government has.

Wrong....

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



--------------


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

--------

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.

--------

--

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

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


-------------

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

You are a gun nut. You have no understanding of weapons or law. What you believe is simply untrue. There are many weapons that one can bear that you are not allowed to own here. And there is no reason you should be allowed to.

And those laws that ban those weapons are unconstitutional.....as Heller clearly points out.....as the 2nd Amendment shows us with those words..."Shall not be infringed."

 

[Jamesonrules]

No, she doesn't know what she is talking about. The gunman was outside by then.

The woman next to her was murdered...she was next...the guy saw the plumber with the AR-15 civilian rifle outside of the church......wow......you are really stupid....

He did not see him. He just left.

*Kelley leaves the church. Moments later a church neighbor, Stephen Willeford, who lives a block away, is alerted by his daughter to the shooting. Willeford, who was barefoot, grabbed his assault rifle.

*Several other Holcombe relatives, who were running late to the service, arrived to the church as the gunman fled.

*The two men exchange gunfire. Willeford stands behind a pickup truck for cover.

*Kelley is hit twice – in a leg and the torso – and drops his assault rifle. He manages to drive away in his pearl-colored SUV and fires off more rounds from another gun through the open driver's side window.'

He was outside, not inside. And the gun saved no one but it did kill 27.

He saw the plumber with the AR-15 civilian rifle outside the church so he went outside to deal with him...then he was shot and then he ran.....

The plumber and his AR-15 saved 26 people...

No, when he came outside he and the plumber exchanged gunfire. The gun saved no one but it did slaughter 27.

Moron.....dip shit....he was calmly shooting the injured....then he saw the guy outside.....that is why he stopped murdering the wounded and left the building....

Are you really this fucking stupid, or are you just pretending to be this fucking stupid....?

Why would one leave the building to face a fire fight? One wouldn't. He had no idea the other guy was there, hiding, until the shooting began. That's when they exchanged gunfire.

 

[Jamesonrules]

Care to list many of the weapons of war you are not allowed to own?

No....according to the 2nd Amendment we get to own weapons of war that are bearable arms.....sorry asswipe......the Supreme Court already ruled on this....

That is obviously not true. And the Supreme Court has never said that. It says you have the right, but limited, to firearms and a limited set of other arms. Not just anything the government has.

Wrong....

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



--------------


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

--------

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.

--------

--

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

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


-------------

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------

You are a gun nut. You have no understanding of weapons or law. What you believe is simply untrue. There are many weapons that one can bear that you are not allowed to own here. And there is no reason you should be allowed to.

And those laws that ban those weapons are unconstitutional.....as Heller clearly points out.....as the 2nd Amendment shows us with those words..."Shall not be infringed."

All rights have limitations. Sorry, you lose. I guess you think that no one no matter the circumstances or even the age can ever be denied an "arms". That's what it says. Convicts, sure thing. Children, sure thing. Infants, sure thing. The insane, sure thing. Wife beaters, sure thing. Child rapists, sure thing. "Shall not be infringed."