4 ms·

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment (2014)

mindcrime 11y ago
Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.” And that tells you everything you need to know about Stevens. He isn't interested in what the Constitution says, he just wants to do what he thinks is right. What conceit. The "powerful reasons" he cites, if they exist at all, are irrelevant unless and until he can get his cockamamie plan of amending the Constitution pushed through. In the meantime, maybe Federal judges should just worry about enforcing the Constitution as it stands? Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. Actually it does, as, by and large, those weapons were exactly those in "common lawful use for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting", etc, or a functional equivalent. Many, if not most, modern rifles sold specifically for hunting are actually semi-automatic rifles, that function nearly identically to an AR-15. Understand, military style fully-automatic or select-fire weapons are NOT being used in these shootings. In fact, a lawfully owned fully-automatic weapon has almost never been used in the commission of a crime since the FBI has kept records. I think there may be something like 1 or 2 cases in the past 100 years. OTOH, a civilian AR-15 is actually not a "high powered weapon" at all, and is only semi-automatic in function. There are commonly used deer hunting rifles that are more powerful than an AR-15. In fact, there are handgun rounds like the .454 Casull that can deliver more muzzle energy than the 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington rounds typically used in an AR-15. This is the kind of crap you get when anti-gunners, who don't actually know much about guns, try to spread misinformation and FUD just to advance their agenda.
a3n 11y ago
Back then, were members of a militia assumed to bring their own guns? If so, a credible militia would have been impossible.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Back then, were members of a militia assumed to bring their own guns? I believe so, yes, particularly the Minutemen-style militia members in New England. > If so, a credible militia would have been impossible. Um, what? Did you mean "if not" rather than "if so"? As written, I can find no logic in this sentence. To me, it seems to directly contradict the one before it.
  - a3n 11y ago
    Yes, I meant if not, or without. Once my brain has thought it, it takes no more responsibility.
devhead 11y ago
just dusting off the ol' soap box, stay classy

Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.” And that tells you everything you need to know about Stevens. He isn't interested in what the Constitution says, he just wants to do what he thinks is right. What conceit. The "powerful reasons" he cites, if they exist at all, are irrelevant unless and until he can get his cockamamie plan of amending the Constitution pushed through. In the meantime, maybe Federal judges should just worry about enforcing the Constitution as it stands? Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. Actually it does, as, by and large, those weapons were exactly those in "common lawful use for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting", etc, or a functional equivalent. Many, if not most, modern rifles sold specifically for hunting are actually semi-automatic rifles, that function nearly identically to an AR-15. Understand, military style fully-automatic or select-fire weapons are NOT being used in these shootings. In fact, a lawfully owned fully-automatic weapon has almost never been used in the commission of a crime since the FBI has kept records. I think there may be something like 1 or 2 cases in the past 100 years. OTOH, a civilian AR-15 is actually not a "high powered weapon" at all, and is only semi-automatic in function. There are commonly used deer hunting rifles that are more powerful than an AR-15. In fact, there are handgun rounds like the .454 Casull that can deliver more muzzle energy than the 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington rounds typically used in an AR-15. This is the kind of crap you get when anti-gunners, who don't actually know much about guns, try to spread misinformation and FUD just to advance their agenda.

a3n 11y ago

Back then, were members of a militia assumed to bring their own guns? If so, a credible militia would have been impossible.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Back then, were members of a militia assumed to bring their own guns? I believe so, yes, particularly the Minutemen-style militia members in New England. > If so, a credible militia would have been impossible. Um, what? Did you mean "if not" rather than "if so"? As written, I can find no logic in this sentence. To me, it seems to directly contradict the one before it.
- a3n 11y ago
  Yes, I meant if not, or without. Once my brain has thought it, it takes no more responsibility.

devhead 11y ago

just dusting off the ol' soap box, stay classy