second amendment is a fundamental right?

[piezoe]

what a childish response to a legitimate question. I did not yet call you a leftist pro publica soros funded distorter of facts. I simply asked a question to see if you were telling us the truth....

Pardon me for being a bit like a good academic or an attorney... but you did make arguments which should have citations to the page of the case. If you don't wish to supply it proper citation... we will judge your argumentation accordingly.

Here is your argument in proper form...


"Banning semi-automatic assault rifles and large ammo clips, for example, according to Heller, would not violate our Second amendment rights. ( 554 U.S. 570 __________. The page number goes where the blank is. )

This is a key point that many, should I go as far as to say the "majority', of gun rights advocates obviously do not understand. The reason these types of semi-automatic firearms are not off the self is political and not because a ban would violate anyone's second amendment rights. Heller is very clear on this."

Jem, get a grip. What I wrote is simply a distillation of what the court said. I'm not arguing with the court, you are. Read the decision for god sake and cut out this nonsense. I have already quoted some relevant sections of the decision. I'm not going to repeat all of it it because I'm assuming you can read for yourself beyond the fourth grade level.

":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.
...

Get a grip. Do you think that a Sig Sauer MCX .223-caliber rifle with a 30 round magazine is not a 'dangerous and unusual weapon.' Just because it is available in the U.S. does not qualify it as a weapon 'in common use'. In fact, Heller leaves the door wide open for the government to ban all semi-automatic firearms.

 

[achilles28]

"a well regulated militia..."

smthg i never understood, how does that phrase often glossed over mean gun rights to unregulated individuals?

ps: i'm for LIMITED gun ownership, ban semi-auto's and esp high-capacity clips whether rifle or handgun

let;s make these shooters need some reload time so they can be overpowered

The reason you never understood the 2nd Amendment - you never bothered to read the Federalist Papers. The Founders explicitly defined what they meant by a "well regulated militia".

Go look up what they said and get back to us.

 

[piezoe]

Perhaps you would care to elaborate with specific citations and quotes from that decision. for instance...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...-case-strike-down-all-such-bans/#4e12fa7f4325

Yes, I will happily elaborate here. In a very recent case the 4th Circuit Appeals Court Struck down a State ban on Assault Weapons on the grounds that such weapons were in common use.

In Justice Breyer's dissent in Heller, Breyer notes the problem attendant to the "common use" distinction cited by the majority in Heller and used in Miller (1939). For example the common use distinction might be applied to distinguish say handguns from fully automatic machine guns. Quoting Justice Breyer:

...But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning...​

As I have noted, Heller is not a case that settles this issue. Heller, in fact, leaves the door wide open for States and the Federal Government to continue to ban certain types of firearms, even those that could be used, among other purposes, for self-defense. In fact, it is my view that Heller actually lends credence to such bans and does nothing to inhibit extensions of such bans to still other types of weapons.The case cited by Forbes is simply one battle in a long and protracted war.

This then is an issue that will wend its way through the courts, arriving eventually at the Supreme court which will have to decide the 'common use' distinction. My guess would be that the issue will be decided on the side of public safety, but as Yogi said, "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

 

[piezoe]

An unorganized militia is any group of armed people other than the U.S. military. There are of course, people that do this within the confines of the law, and then there are those that don't. Either way, I doubt that's much of a solution as even if congress came up with some law that required a person to be part of some militia, we would simply see militias popping up for people to join. Lets cut to the chase. What you really want to know is what does someone like me offer as a solution, as if my opinion matters to the criminals in congress. Okay, here goes.
1. No way, no how, should a person be able to go out today, buy a firearm and be able to bring it home with them same day. Any firearm, no exceptions. A federal and state background check must be done. Done in a reasonable time for a reasonable cost.
2. Once the background check is successfully completed a mandatory class must be taken. No exceptions. Part of the class is on the mechanics of the weapon. The rest, and frankly the bulk of the class should be on the personal responsibility of owning that weapon and the laws surrounding that.
Complete these two steps and now you're the proud owner of the weapon of your choice.

The argument of course is that this will not stop hardened criminals and terrorists. I agree. However, putting these steps into the process might stop the Adam Lanza types and perhaps just the guy who's really pissed off. Of course if the Adam Lanza types has a stupid cunt of a mother like he did, one that goes out and provides her bat-shit crazy kid with guns, well then you can't stop stupid. I still think it's worth the effort to try and prevent at least a portion of these horrific killings.
Will this perfectly reasonable precaution be taken? Absolutely not! Why? Because we don't trust this criminally corrupt government, that's why. They have lied to us repeatedly for decades about every god damn thing under the sun. They are not trustworthy, nor do they have the best interest of the people or this nation in their personal agenda. So fuck'em.

Three cheers for your #1 and #2! I'm not so enthusiastic about the language of the latter part of your post, though I try to understand the sentiment expressed.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Three cheers for your #1 and #2! I'm not so enthusiastic about the language of the latter part of your post, though I try to understand the sentiment expressed.

My poor choice of words to express my frustration with this government, and others too hard headed to bend an inch is not meant to offend anyone but them. My rush to foul language when aggravated is a defect of character. I'm working on it, but it seems to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Ricter]

Yes, I will happily elaborate here. In a very recent case the 4th Circuit Appeals Court Struck down a State ban on Assault Weapons on the grounds that such weapons were in common use.

In Justice Breyer's dissent in Heller, Breyer notes the problem attendant to the "common use" distinction cited by the majority in Heller and used in Miller (1939). For example the common use distinction might be applied to distinguish say handguns from fully automatic machine guns. Quoting Justice Breyer:

...But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning...​

As I have noted, Heller is not a case that settles this issue. Heller, in fact, leaves the door wide open for States and the Federal Government to continue to ban certain types of firearms, even those that could be used, among other purposes, for self-defense. In fact, it is my view that Heller actually lends credence to such bans and does nothing to inhibit extensions of such bans to still other types of weapons.The case cited by Forbes is simply one battle in a long and protracted war.

This then is an issue that will wend its way through the courts, arriving eventually at the Supreme court which will have to decide the 'common use' distinction. My guess would be that the issue will be decided on the side of public safety, but as Yogi said, "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

Thought experiment... consider the situation if a firearm like the phaser from Star Trek were invented. It could not only kill a person but utterly disappear the body, both in an instant. I think most of us would agree, "yeah, ok, that weapon is too powerful for individual ownership." And yet, a phaser would work for home defense (set it to stun) and firing it would not destroy a whole city, distinctions used today to justify individuals owning an AR-15 but not a nuke.

 

[Arnie]

Thought experiment... consider the situation if a firearm like the phaser from Star Trek were invented. It could not only kill a person but utterly disappear the body, both in an instant. I think most of us would agree, "yeah, ok, that weapon is too powerful for individual ownership." And yet, a phaser would work for home defense (set it to stun) and firing it would not destroy a whole city, distinctions used today to justify individuals owning an AR-15 but not a nuke.

Ok, so what's the threshold? A musket?

 

[jimmiebarton]

Thought experiment... consider the situation if a firearm like the phaser from Star Trek were invented. It could not only kill a person but utterly disappear the body, both in an instant. I think most of us would agree, "yeah, ok, that weapon is too powerful for individual ownership." And yet, a phaser would work for home defense (set it to stun) and firing it would not destroy a whole city, distinctions used today to justify individuals owning an AR-15 but not a nuke.

thats easy. must be banned.

give us a hard problem to solve...

 

[Ricter]

Ok, so what's the threshold? A musket?

If double-barreled, maybe.
: )

 

[ETcallhome]

thats easy. must be banned.

give us a hard problem to solve...

is there anything you don't like that shouldn't be banned? See, an ignore button accomplishes everything you want but still allows others who like to have their freedom. If you ban everybody you don't like then you'll end up just like Canada. See the difference? It's kind of deep so think first before posting next time.