Politics 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

I disagree with your definition of an assault rifle, here's the defintions for them from some dictionaries.

Dictionary.com

Meriam-Websters

From what I understand the primary distinction of an AR-15 and say a 30-06 is the design of the gun and their use cases. The AR-15 was designed for a military application, it was designed for use in combat, it was designed in such a way to make it easy on the operator to shoot large quantities of rounds both accurately and with great ease and control. Here's a very good interview with Terry Gross and another journalist from the WaPo who did a lot of research on the subject discussing what makes the AR-15 both popular and deadly.

Link

Here's some more good quotes on the subject.

I don't mean this as hyperbole, but seriously why would someone need an AR-15? A handgun I can understand for self defense/ home defense, but an AR-15? Plus, from many self defense professionals I have seen they highly recommend a shotgun anyway because it's easier to hit a moving target with buckshot than with a single bullet. I dunno man, anyone advocating for having assault rifles as merriam-webster defines them is suspicious to me.

 

Let me add to this by stating the cops in Uvalde were slow to move in and confront the shooter because of the type of weapon he was using, an AR-15. They know what it can do, and were fearful of it. It's astounding to me that if cops are fearful of this thing, and they are slow to respond as a result of its deadliness, then it just seems to provide further arguments for why this and other weapons with similar designs should be outlawed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-shooter-because-of-the-rifle-he-used-report/

Also this is an older statistic but here's an article I found on the statistic of an AR-15, 26% of mass shootings at the time of this article being written were done with an AR-15.

https://www.newsweek.com/ar-15-rifles-were-used-26-percent-last-80-mass-shootings-america-1578107

 

I disagree, you don't need to even pass an amendment. Dems just need to follow the same strategy as the Republicans, it will take a few decades but the roadmap exists. Simply get the right justices on the supreme court, pass a new law banning assault rifles, get a new case in front of the supreme court, and then overturn the Heller case from 2008 which was wrongly decided. Simple.

 

Here's another good article on the subject, and it reminds me that the Heller decision actually was scoped to prevent states from preventing ownership of handguns within the home.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/

 

The supreme court has supported the individual right to own firearms for self defense multiple times.

It seems like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

What the Republicans have done has undermined the judicial branch in order to restrict the freedoms of the population. I don't think Democrats should do anything of the sort. IMO, Democrats should focus on strengthening our institutions for the purpose of empowering the people.

 

Seems like a reach. Seems like mental gymnastics to twist the actual words.

In order to have a capable militia (which is irregular infantry) you have to be able to call upon a population of people who have kept themselves trained and in the best fighting condition possible.

Militia is outside the control of the state except when needed. If it intended for the States to have the power it would have just said the States have the power. It wouldn't have said the the rights of the people to own and operate militia weaponry ( weapons equivalent to your average infantry soldier) shall not be infringed.

The constitution is a limit on the power of the government. It restricts the government and protects individual rights.

 

It seems reasonable that the AR would be used a lot. It's the most popular rifle in the US.

And let those scared "Police" watch this comparison of the AR15 (.223/5.56) round compared to other hunting rifle rounds...

 

Like trying to have a convo with Sheldon Cooper.

 

But you're not trying to have a conversation at all. You're just sitting back and taking cheap shots like Ike Clanton.

 

Been there, done that, and certainly not going back for a chance at some worthless t-shirt.

 

So all that being said... how do you legally differentiate a semi-automatic AR from a semi-automatic hunting rifle? Or is the proposal only for fully automatic rifles? Or is it for all semi-automatic guns?

 

I love how your position has been so thoroughly debunked that you can't even hit the reply button to a person you disagree with.

Feel free to enlighten us all. How do you differentiate an AR15 from a hunting rifle?

 

A capable militia. A well regulated militia, which is what the text states. I'm not in fighting shape. I am not in the best shape possible. I have never trained. But I can go in and purchase a gun today. Why is the well regulated militia part routinely ignored?

 

lmao...Pavlov's dog.

 

That's an excellent question, and I'm glad you asked. It's not ignored, it just doesn't mean what you think it does in this context (militia's are renowned for being out of control). Well regulated at the time was used in reference to being "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected". They addressed this in Heller, actually.

Here are some examples of the term being used in writings of the time...

Excerpt from:
A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)

Again, it's important that you don't forget that the constitution doesn't restrict individuals from anything. It protects the rights of individuals by placing restrictions on the government.

It doesn't make sense that it would be placing any restriction on the people. It specifically says that the peoples rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It only mentions the militia to set the standard for why those rights are protected. Protecting the rights of civilians to own and operate similar weapons as your average infantry soldier. Giving us a much larger population of civilians who are familiar with the weapons.

Thereby drastically improving the speed at which a larger militia could be assembled as well as the effectiveness of said force.

 

Nobody needs semi-automatic guns at all in the private sector...people have hunted forever with manually chambered rifles and shotguns. A good hunter needs one shot....two at the most. If you shoot more than that you spoil the meat with adrenaline from their fear. Nobody needs handguns either. They are designed to shoot people. Stop shooting people! End gun culture in America and start building a healthy, safer society for young people to grow up in.

 

I understand that is your opinion. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes. We could make much more substantial changes than that in a decade if we'd stop chasing these red herrings the political parties keep shoving down our throats.

Hunters have been using semi-automatic hunting rifles for nearly a century.

Gun laws make a very marginal difference at best in the US. The vast majority of states would not enforce any gun laws. And they will not in our lifetimes.

It's easier and cheaper to make a full automatic than it is to make a semi automatic. So again, outlawing all semiautomatic will encourage more full automatic to hit the black market. And 3/4 of the states will likely not enforce the bans for decades.

You're asking for another prohibition situation.

 

What is the justification or reason for owning a car that is capable of going 200 mph?

 

An AR is no more scary than any other rifle. A higher caliber rifle would defeat their body armor, whereas their armor might withstand a shot from an AR. I don't think the type of gun played any role at all in their reasoning to go in or not.