canada is not so bad discounting the winters is it?
second amendment is a fundamental right?
- Thread starter jimmiebarton
- Start date
no, and they have more gun ownership per capita than USA, or at least they use to, and soon no winters
I was not arguing with anybody. I did not even have an opinion as to what Scalia wrote because I had not read the case fully. I asked you to give a citation to the page which supported your argument about ARs so I could come up to speed.
But... knowing who you like to write, I suspected we would find the typical pro publica / salon / soros slant.
Since you did not provide support for what you wrote by showing us the page numbers I had to do some work myself.
I now have an opinion. In my opinion your reading was and is unsubstantiated.
I think you overstated the case against ARs.
In fact since you did not provide a citation to the page and then you seemed to have walked your argument back, I feel comfortable stating you know you over stated the case against common use semi automatic ARs for home defense.
I note Bryers dissent does illustrate the subjective part of the definition. Common Use.
However, Bryers argument is far from compelling. I note... that Ricters thought experiment about phasers illustrates why changing technology requires the Court to keep such a subjective term in the definition.
A phaser manufactured to only stun would be great for home defense. A phaser that could eliminate all evidence of a murder by de materializing the victim would present a problem.
But... knowing who you like to write, I suspected we would find the typical pro publica / salon / soros slant.
Since you did not provide support for what you wrote by showing us the page numbers I had to do some work myself.
I now have an opinion. In my opinion your reading was and is unsubstantiated.
I think you overstated the case against ARs.
In fact since you did not provide a citation to the page and then you seemed to have walked your argument back, I feel comfortable stating you know you over stated the case against common use semi automatic ARs for home defense.
I note Bryers dissent does illustrate the subjective part of the definition. Common Use.
However, Bryers argument is far from compelling. I note... that Ricters thought experiment about phasers illustrates why changing technology requires the Court to keep such a subjective term in the definition.
A phaser manufactured to only stun would be great for home defense. A phaser that could eliminate all evidence of a murder by de materializing the victim would present a problem.
Last edited:
Jem. I tried to save you the trouble of hunting down the relevant passages in the 64 page opinion by quoting them directly. which I did. You can find out what page they appear on by typing them into Google. The opinion is not going to mention specific brands, such as AR-15. You know that of course. Heller doesn't deal with banning of types of weapons. That is a separate issue and will result in a separate Supreme court case eventually. Heller was a case challenging whether a total ban in D.C., unless the firearm was disabled, violated Heller's second amendment rights. The court ruled that it did, and i certainly agree with the court. But at the same time Heller reiterates that the second amendment right does not extend to any firearm for any purpose, and leaves the door open to some future court deciding which types of firearms are protected. This is the precise point on which many gun enthusiasts go wrong. They mistakenly think that the second amendment right, with regard to firearms is unrestricted, ignoring that we have for many years banned private ownership of certain types of firearms, and the types banned could be expanded under both Miller and Heller. That's not changed one bit. What Breyer did in his dissent was to point out the illogic of using "in common use" as a criterion.
Even though there are millions of AR-15 sold in the U.S. -- about 4 million -- that number pales in comparison to the more than 300 million firearms in the U.S. Most of the assault rifles are in agency or police hands and most in private hands belong to gun enthusiasts, collectors etc. I would argue that they are not in common use, were I on the court. And aren't you glad I'm not!? IMO it doesn't matter and won't matter, as when this issue arrives at the Supreme court it is going to be decided mainly on other grounds. The common use argument will be only secondary and can easily be dispensed with. Let's say at least more easily than Scalia was able to jettison the Second Amendment's prefatory clause.
If we give up our guns, will our winters get colder?
Global Warming. No more winters, apparently.
yes! Ice is melting at record rates and polar bears are starving, all because of the republican science deniers and when it comes to guns you know what they are for. If you want to restore the earth back to it's normal temperature like when Kennedy or FDR was in charge, just do the opposite of what the republicans want.
I don't know anyone who thinks insane people should have guns. I don't know anyone who thinks recent immigrants who are not citizens should have guns, if they are not in law enforcement or the military. I don't know anyone who argues we have a constitutional right to an atomic bomb thrower. Every pro constitution person I know realizes there are limits to our rights, so I am not sure who you were attempting to inform. But...
thankfully, you have now illustrated via the Sup Ct case law that the govt does not have an unfettered ability to deprive our citizens of our constitution right to own firearms. I hope your lefty friends take note.
thankfully, you have now illustrated via the Sup Ct case law that the govt does not have an unfettered ability to deprive our citizens of our constitution right to own firearms. I hope your lefty friends take note.
Jem. I tried to save you the trouble of hunting down the relevant passages in the 64 page opinion by quoting them directly. which I did. You can find out what page they appear on by typing them into Google. The opinion is not going to mention specific brands, such as AR-15. You know that of course. Heller doesn't deal with banning of types of weapons. That is a separate issue and will result in a separate Supreme court case eventually. Heller was a case challenging whether a total ban in D.C., unless the firearm was disabled, violated Heller's second amendment rights. The court ruled that it did, and i certainly agree with the court. But at the same time Heller reiterates that the second amendment right does not extend to any firearm for any purpose, and leaves the door open to some future court deciding which types of firearms are protected. This is the precise point on which many gun enthusiasts go wrong. They mistakenly think that the second amendment right, with regard to firearms is unrestricted, ignoring that we have for many years banned private ownership of certain types of firearms, and the types banned could be expanded under both Miller and Heller. That's not changed one bit. What Breyer did in his dissent was to point out the illogic of using "in common use" as a criterion.
Even though there are millions of AR-15 sold in the U.S. -- about 4 million -- that number pales in comparison to the more than 300 million firearms in the U.S. Most of the assault rifles are in agency or police hands and most in private hands belong to gun enthusiasts, collectors etc. I would argue that they are not in common use, were I on the court. And aren't you glad I'm not!? IMO it doesn't matter and won't matter, as when this issue arrives at the Supreme court it is going to be decided mainly on other grounds. The common use argument will be only secondary and can easily be dispensed with. Let's say at least more easily than Scalia was able to jettison the Second Amendment's prefatory clause.
Last edited:
The germane question currently is can the government ban assault rifles, large magazines, certain types of ammunition, and certain other semiautomatic weapon? I think I know what the answer will be. It would be a mistake to think that either Miller or Heller closed the door to that possibility. Both Miller and Heller leave the door, if not wide open, at least open way more than a crack to the possibility of further restrictions on the types of firearms that have second amendment protection.
Last edited:
yes, but the underlying reason for the right to bear arms was not just so a single man can protect his property, but so the people could defend themselves against a similarly armed army whether foreign or domestic.