Gun Control in the US

[Farbautisonn]

I believe (withtout having concrete data) that selfinflicted gunshot wound is the leadingcause of suicide in the US whilst pharmaceutica such as painkillers or ODing on prescription drugs (in the case of people with depressions/anxiety attacks/bipolar disorders) leads in Europe. Read that somewhere . Men are three times more likely to succeed than women. Dont know if thats a statistic worth aiming for... if youll forgive the pun.

[Farbautisonn]

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-043489/en/index.html

 

Hanging seems to be number one generally speaking.

[Drowsy Emperor]

When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly.

 

In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

While close range negates a lot of advantages of a rifle over a pistol it doesn't negate all of them. A pistol round is typically lighter and slower than a(n assault) rifle round and (all other things being equal) is far less damaging, at any range. Even limited to just handguns there's huge variation in survivability, eg a .44 magnum is far more deadly than a 9mm round. In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round.

 

I've fired a .22, a .223NATO and a .303 (? Lee Enfield from WW2 anyway) and I have no doubt whatsoever that were I ever to be unfortunate enough to get shot I'd prefer the .22, at any range under the sun.

 

Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon. They're inherently less controllable and more dangerous to bystanders whatever the context. I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US. I'm pretty comfortable overall with the situation here where it's reasonably easy to get a rifle if you have a good reason (hunting qualifies) and can pass the licence for it (basically have people willing to say you aren't bonkers, do not have a drug or alcohol problem and do not have criminal convictions) and have good security such as a trigger lock/ safe/ rack plus keep ammo/ bolt separate from the gun.

 

From what I know of automatic weapons in the US, they were banned, and the only legal ones on the market are those pre-ban ones which are essentially collectors pieces that fetch high prices. At least that's how it used to be at some point.

 

While there is no real reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon, all of them require a person a to pull the trigger, and if that person is an idiot then its equally dangerous whatever he/she is holding.

 

Besides, in Switzerland everyone who has passed army duty gets one of the best assault rifles in the world to keep at home. I dont see the Swiss dying in droves because of it.

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models.

 

So, one could argue that Switzerland is the most militarized country in the world... and one of the most peaceful at the same time. I don't think its peaceful because everyone house has a rife, but it definitely proves that gun ownership doesn't correlate directly to violence and crime.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Calax]

When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly.

 

In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

While close range negates a lot of advantages of a rifle over a pistol it doesn't negate all of them. A pistol round is typically lighter and slower than a(n assault) rifle round and (all other things being equal) is far less damaging, at any range. Even limited to just handguns there's huge variation in survivability, eg a .44 magnum is far more deadly than a 9mm round. In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round.

 

I've fired a .22, a .223NATO and a .303 (? Lee Enfield from WW2 anyway) and I have no doubt whatsoever that were I ever to be unfortunate enough to get shot I'd prefer the .22, at any range under the sun.

 

Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon. They're inherently less controllable and more dangerous to bystanders whatever the context. I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US. I'm pretty comfortable overall with the situation here where it's reasonably easy to get a rifle if you have a good reason (hunting qualifies) and can pass the licence for it (basically have people willing to say you aren't bonkers, do not have a drug or alcohol problem and do not have criminal convictions) and have good security such as a trigger lock/ safe/ rack plus keep ammo/ bolt separate from the gun.

 

From what I know of automatic weapons in the US, they were banned, and the only legal ones on the market are those pre-ban ones which are essentially collectors pieces that fetch high prices. At least that's how it used to be at some point.

 

While there is no real reason for a civilian to own an automatic weapon, all of them require a person a to pull the trigger, and if that person is an idiot then its equally dangerous whatever he/she is holding.

 

Besides, in Switzerland everyone who has passed army duty gets one of the best assault rifles in the world to keep at home. I dont see the Swiss dying in droves because of it.

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models.

Well, A) the Swiss require army training to even own a gun, which means that they're at least pretty good at gun safety.

 

B) I don't think anyone has counted how many semi-autos have been modified since their purchase to be fully automatic. And while it might bot be the easiest thing on the planet, It is something that's happened.

 

Ya know... THIS

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step

[Malcador]

Probably making their rifle less effective overall by doing that.

[Raithe]

"If you are truly a pacifist, you can't call the cops. They are going to use force, restraint, and weapons to enforce your position."

 

I did catch a bit of the NRA Vice-President's speech about it all earlier today, and while he made some valid points he then undermined it by saying that having our underage children play Grand Theft Auto is the problem because it teaches them murder is fun. My main problem with that is if he's letting his underage kids play the Grand Theft Auto games he's missing the whole "mature" labelling on them and it's his own damn fault for letting underage kids play the games...

[Zoraptor]

Besides, in Switzerland everyone who has passed army duty gets one of the best assault rifles in the world to keep at home. I dont see the Swiss dying in droves because of it.

Passing army duty also requires passing a psychiatric test. I don't think it's any surprise that Switzerland would have lower than expected gun violence stats since the people owning the ARs are both well trained in their proper use and have no detectable underlying mental issues, as that removes two of the biggest potential problem factors in gun ownership from the get go.

[Gromnir]

I'm sick to my stomach right now about the shooting at the Connecticut school. It makes me want to rush out of work and go pick my daughter from kindergarten, and then take my family in the RV and live off the grid for awhile. I also keep staring sadly at my students, which they probably find a bit odd. Anyways, I know these are all emotional reactions to a very tragic situation, but I decided a good way to take my mind off of the horror is to discuss what we can possibly do to stop these things from happening. I realize we don't know enough about this case to really reference it yet, but I think there are enough recent shootings going back to Columbine to have a discussion.

 

So I want to talk about the big issue of gun control. I've always been on the fence about it, but after the shooting in the movie theater in Colorado, I started to really question why certain weapons are needed by anyone in a non-military or law enforcement role. The Oregon mall shooting could have been much worse if the gun hadn't jammed, and now we have this shooting in Connecticut.

 

I don't know a lot about firearms, so I am hoping some of you can educate me. Are there any restrictions we can place on rate of fire or something? Can we limit some of these guns strictly to gun ranges or something? I'm not sure what the answers are here, I just think something needs to change.

 

Other than gun control, I think we need a massive change in our psychiatric care system. But I suppose we can start another thread for that.

 

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty.

 

these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment.

 

oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful.

[Volourn]

"I did catch a bit of the NRA Vice-President's speech about it all earlier today, and while he made some valid points he then undermined it by saying that having our underage children play Grand Theft Auto is the problem because it teaches them murder is fun. "

 

*sigh* I'm not a gun nut but I'm pretty much on the pro allow law abiding citzens keep their guns but that commnent just reeks of retartation.

 

Games do NOT turn people into murderers any more than guns do. FFS

[Blarghagh]

I'm sick to my stomach right now about the shooting at the Connecticut school. It makes me want to rush out of work and go pick my daughter from kindergarten, and then take my family in the RV and live off the grid for awhile. I also keep staring sadly at my students, which they probably find a bit odd. Anyways, I know these are all emotional reactions to a very tragic situation, but I decided a good way to take my mind off of the horror is to discuss what we can possibly do to stop these things from happening. I realize we don't know enough about this case to really reference it yet, but I think there are enough recent shootings going back to Columbine to have a discussion.

 

So I want to talk about the big issue of gun control. I've always been on the fence about it, but after the shooting in the movie theater in Colorado, I started to really question why certain weapons are needed by anyone in a non-military or law enforcement role. The Oregon mall shooting could have been much worse if the gun hadn't jammed, and now we have this shooting in Connecticut.

 

I don't know a lot about firearms, so I am hoping some of you can educate me. Are there any restrictions we can place on rate of fire or something? Can we limit some of these guns strictly to gun ranges or something? I'm not sure what the answers are here, I just think something needs to change.

 

Other than gun control, I think we need a massive change in our psychiatric care system. But I suppose we can start another thread for that.

 

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty.

 

these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment.

 

oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful.

 

The problem is that the second amendment is maddeningly unclear, undefined and unhelpful. It can be twisted to fit any whim and in fact constantly is - I'm pretty sure that less than a percent of people defending it have ever read it and those who have still don't have an understanding of the word "regulated".

 

Sadly it seems to be the point of the laws in the US to be as ridiculous and outdated as possible. The world evolved and the American justice system did not. I'm glad I don't have to be subjected to its arbitrary stupidity.

Edited December 22, 2012 by TrueNeutral

[Gromnir]

I'm sick to my stomach right now about the shooting at the Connecticut school. It makes me want to rush out of work and go pick my daughter from kindergarten, and then take my family in the RV and live off the grid for awhile. I also keep staring sadly at my students, which they probably find a bit odd. Anyways, I know these are all emotional reactions to a very tragic situation, but I decided a good way to take my mind off of the horror is to discuss what we can possibly do to stop these things from happening. I realize we don't know enough about this case to really reference it yet, but I think there are enough recent shootings going back to Columbine to have a discussion.

 

So I want to talk about the big issue of gun control. I've always been on the fence about it, but after the shooting in the movie theater in Colorado, I started to really question why certain weapons are needed by anyone in a non-military or law enforcement role. The Oregon mall shooting could have been much worse if the gun hadn't jammed, and now we have this shooting in Connecticut.

 

I don't know a lot about firearms, so I am hoping some of you can educate me. Are there any restrictions we can place on rate of fire or something? Can we limit some of these guns strictly to gun ranges or something? I'm not sure what the answers are here, I just think something needs to change.

 

Other than gun control, I think we need a massive change in our psychiatric care system. But I suppose we can start another thread for that.

 

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty.

 

these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment.

 

oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful.

 

The problem is that the second amendment is maddeningly unclear, undefined and unhelpful. It can be twisted to fit any whim and in fact constantly is - I'm pretty sure that less than a percent of people defending it have ever read it and those who have still don't have an understanding of the word "regulated".

 

 

 

the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller would seem to disagree with you, and is the Court that interprets the Law.

 

and again, regardless of whether you think the Amendment is outdated or outlandish, it is the Law... and there IS a process to change such laws.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

It's not my law, I'm not from the U.S. and speaking as an outside observer the Court shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom with strict supervision.

[Calax]

I'm sick to my stomach right now about the shooting at the Connecticut school. It makes me want to rush out of work and go pick my daughter from kindergarten, and then take my family in the RV and live off the grid for awhile. I also keep staring sadly at my students, which they probably find a bit odd. Anyways, I know these are all emotional reactions to a very tragic situation, but I decided a good way to take my mind off of the horror is to discuss what we can possibly do to stop these things from happening. I realize we don't know enough about this case to really reference it yet, but I think there are enough recent shootings going back to Columbine to have a discussion.

 

So I want to talk about the big issue of gun control. I've always been on the fence about it, but after the shooting in the movie theater in Colorado, I started to really question why certain weapons are needed by anyone in a non-military or law enforcement role. The Oregon mall shooting could have been much worse if the gun hadn't jammed, and now we have this shooting in Connecticut.

 

I don't know a lot about firearms, so I am hoping some of you can educate me. Are there any restrictions we can place on rate of fire or something? Can we limit some of these guns strictly to gun ranges or something? I'm not sure what the answers are here, I just think something needs to change.

 

Other than gun control, I think we need a massive change in our psychiatric care system. But I suppose we can start another thread for that.

 

is no real fence worth straddling at the moment. 2nd Amendment precludes much in the way o' meaningful gun control options. times and weapons have changed since founders penned the Bill o' Rights. that not change the fact that the founders were no doubt wanting private citizens to have weapons with which to defend themselves not only from foreign armies, indians (our relatives insist that indians is the pc term nowadays for native americans... so confusing) and the infrequent rabid possum, but also to defend self from the US government. option is to change 2nd Amendment... which currently seems unlikely. never forget that what we gots here in the US is a revolutionary government and a Bill o' Rights that were revealing a very deep lack o' faith that the fed powers would effective protect our freedom and liberty.

 

these infrequent tragedies, such as one in CT, are wonderful for getting folks riled up 'bout gun control, but is all sound and fury. change 2nd Amendment.

 

oh, and keeps in mind that gun control laws in norway is relative strict. didn't keeps anders breivik from killing... we forget how many. more than 70?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we personally think it is stoopid for folks to have handguns and ak-47s n' such. this ain't personal. this is the law. the Constitution gots a process for being changed. gonna have to change to do something meaningful.

 

The problem is that the second amendment is maddeningly unclear, undefined and unhelpful. It can be twisted to fit any whim and in fact constantly is - I'm pretty sure that less than a percent of people defending it have ever read it and those who have still don't have an understanding of the word "regulated".

 

 

 

the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller would seem to disagree with you, and is the Court that interprets the Law.

 

and again, regardless of whether you think the Amendment is outdated or outlandish, it is the Law... and there IS a process to change such laws.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Speaking of that

 

Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Furthermore, military grade weapons not being the sort of weapons that are possessed at home that would be brought to militia duty are not the sort of lawful weapon conceived of being protected. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."^[73] Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and weapons like it – are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.

 

AR's are not provided with 2nd amendment protections.

[Gromnir]

do NOT rely on wikipedia. and do not read wrong.

 

*smacks calax with rolled newspaper*

 

bad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

do NOT rely on wikipedia. and do not read wrong.

 

*smacks calax with rolled newspaper*

 

bad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said' date=' as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also [i']State[/i] v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

 

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Sincerely http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#25ref

Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons".

 

*smacks gromnir with a shotgun*

Edited December 22, 2012 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

M16's are fully automatic. AR's are less powerful than hunting rifles, they use what's called an intermediate round, in between a pistol and a rifle. This assault weapons bull is all about cosmetics.

[Volourn]

"Sadly it seems to be the point of the laws in the US to be as ridiculous and outdated as possible. The world evolved and the American justice system did not. I'm glad I don't have to be subjected to its arbitrary stupidity. "

 

Sadly, the popint of you is to be a bigot. All countries have ridiculous and outdated laws . L0L The world has evolved into supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. R00fles!

[Orogun01]

M16's are fully automatic. AR's are less powerful than hunting rifles, they use what's called an intermediate round, in between a pistol and a rifle. This assault weapons bull is all about cosmetics.

Barrels can be changed.

[Gorgon]

Well whatever, they're toys. Hunting with a bolt action riftle, now that's skills.

[Gromnir]

do NOT rely on wikipedia. and do not read wrong.

 

*smacks calax with rolled newspaper*

 

bad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said' date=' as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also [i']State[/i] v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

 

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Sincerely http://www.law.corne...0.ZO.html#25ref

Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons".

 

*smacks gromnir with a shotgun*

do NOT rely on wikipedia. and do not read wrong.

 

*smacks calax with rolled newspaper*

 

bad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said' date=' as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also [i']State[/i] v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

 

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Sincerely http://www.law.corne...0.ZO.html#25ref

Yeeesssss???? He's deliberately saying that M16's and other military grade weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment because the fall under the title of "dangerous and unusual weapons".

 

*smacks gromnir with a shotgun*

 

at least you not just reprint wiki conclusions, so we won't rub nose in it, but you is still using wiki conclusions rather than making your own. again you ain't reading correct. read Full case to see how Scalia uses m-16 to identify a class o' weapons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

at least you not just reprint wiki conclusions, so we won't rub nose in it, but you is still using wiki conclusions rather than making your own. again you ain't reading correct. read Full case to see how Scalia uses m-16 to identify a class o' weapons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again?

[Gromnir]

at least you not just reprint wiki conclusions, so we won't rub nose in it, but you is still using wiki conclusions rather than making your own. again you ain't reading correct. read Full case to see how Scalia uses m-16 to identify a class o' weapons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again?

 

*sigh*

 

we said you didn't quote wiki the second time... good for you. (more bad reading on your part) unfortunately, you didn't bother to read the case. Scalia mentions m-16 specific numerous times. please read the case w/o adding your own preconceptions into the text. maybe ask self why m-16 is identified and not other weapons would help you.

 

...

 

we could give you answer, but then you wouldn't learn nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 22, 2012 by Gromnir

[Calax]

at least you not just reprint wiki conclusions, so we won't rub nose in it, but you is still using wiki conclusions rather than making your own. again you ain't reading correct. read Full case to see how Scalia uses m-16 to identify a class o' weapons.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Those words I quoted are from Scalia's decision. And the source is from Cornell Law. Care to try again?

 

*sigh*

 

we said you didn't quote wiki the second time... good for you. (more bad reading on your part) unfortunately, you didn't bother to read the case. Scalia mentions m-16 specific numerous times. please read the case w/o adding your own preconceptions into the text. maybe ask self why m-16 is identified and not other weapons would help you.

 

...

 

we could give you answer, but then you wouldn't learn nothing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Go to the document, hit ctrl f, type M16 and M-16 and count how many times it pops up.

 

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Gromnir]

*chuckle* been awhile since we read case. apologies: m-16 and "machineguns" gets mentioned. regardless, you is missing forest for trees. why m-16? keep in mind that Scalia is Extreme smart. if an ambiguity exists, it exits for a reason.

 

some others here has identified the issue that you seem incapable of recognizing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Calax]

So you're saying that Machine guns ARE protected by the specific ruling in question?

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

As I understand it, Scalia specifically says that while handguns (which were the point of the DC case) are fully protected by the 2nd amendment due to their reliability as a protective institution, and the proliferation within america, there are still limits. Namely Concealed weapons issues and the requirment to have a license for the weapon, to prevent it from falling into the hands of somebody liable to use it for the wrong purposes

 

His point about Machine guns and M16's (which his opponents have torn apart) is that they're to big to be strictly home defense weapons, and they aren't nearly as widespread as the handguns. Thus they aren't protected as to hold those would be to cause more danger than the number of lives they'd save. He points out that the part of the amendment (about militias) is being divorced from the rest of it (right to bare arms) because when the amendment was written, the same weapons were used for warfare and hunting and, well, everything. Now, handguns are used for most defensive postures, and rifles are used for hunting etc, but a machine gun or other rapid fire weapon has no place in the home as a defensive weapon, nor would it ever be used to hunt and thus, not protected while in the hands of a common citizen.

 

His dissenters in (one of) their opinions stated that he was making a circular argument. Hand guns are prevalent, thus they're protected as the most common form of defensive firearm. If something were to magically change the dynamics of the system, making automatic weapons and machine guns the standard form of defense, would the court then reverse it's decision and make automatic weapons constitutionally protected because they were prevalent?

 

On the subject of what has been discussed here in thread, The defenders of Assault Rifles and military grade weapons in the hands of civilians have cited 2 major factors to support their side of the argument:

 

A)That these weapons have not been used in a shooting massacre (in America)

B) That these weapons are not ideal for killing anything due to ammunition size and amount of damage done to the target.

 

Issue is that the second of those items rules out the weapons as purely home defense weapons. If they aren't the best option over a .45 you got for 90 bucks at a swap meet, why do you have it? Same with hunting. These weapons serve no purpose outside of a military environment (or para-military). And as Scalia pointed out, the Militias of ye-olden days have been phased out by government organizations that draw their memberships from the population at large.

 

As to the first? That depends on what you mean by "Massacre", and the time frame you choose to look at it. The early part of the previous century was rife with tales of bank robbers running around with Military grade weapons (BAR's and Thompsons with Drum magazines) and being able to outgun the police sent after them.

 

Also, these yahoos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

 

Who, in 1997 carried AK47 and AR15 rifles into a gun battle with the LAPD. The AR15, in particular, is of interest because posters are saying that they should be allowed to wield it, when in this particular case, the AR15 was made fully automatic with a MASSIVE magazine. The only reason this wouldn't fall into "massacre" territory is because the only deaths were of the perpetrators, and there were "only" 18 injured as the area had been cleared of civilians and blocked off.