Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Back then there were progressive Republicans and conservative Democrats.

The Republicans who voted for the 1994 gun ban were not conservatives.

They probably are in left-leaning districts. Or at least moderate districts.

Speaking as a conservative, I'd prefer it if the 2021 bill had not passed. But there was nothing critically bad about it. Since it didn't do anything, I don't really care if someone voted for it.

It is not the motivation. Progressives support laws that don't save lives and do violate people's civil liberties.

Like when they try to outlaw pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and flash suppressors. Those laws do not save lives. The only reason for them is to violate people's civil liberties.

Those studies do not establish that any lives are saved. They merely show that when more guns are available, murderers are more likely to use a gun.

And when fewer guns are available, murderers are less likely to use a gun.

But murder victims are just as dead regardless of whether they are killed with a gun or with some other kind of weapon.

We've been registering guns for more then 50 years now. That's what a Form 4473 does.

Yes, but those regulations that do violate Constitutional constraints are unconstitutional.

If there is not any sort of concrete evidence that something is actually good policy, I doubt that it would pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

We don't live in an absolute democracy. We live in a constitutional democracy.

The courts strike down the results of democracy when those results violate people's civil liberties.

The freedom argument isn't bogus when people call for abolishing our civil liberties.

 

I would say false, because there is no such thing as a semi-auto-only rifle that is designed to kill as many people as possible.

Any rifle designed for those purposes would include full-auto capability.

The greatest service that semi-auto provides to defense against large dangerous animals is recoil reduction.

Some semi-auto actions take some of the recoil and delay it. Instead of 100% of the recoil in a single instant, you get 60% of the recoil, then 20% of the recoil, then the last 20%.

The result is that instead of a sharp jab against the shoulder, the recoil is experienced as a soft(er) push.

The guns that are best for stopping a large bear often provide much more recoil than many shooters can handle. This recoil reduction is a godsend to them.

Semi-auto rifles are useful for rapid follow up shots too of course. Not only for bears but also when defending against human criminals.

Bolt action rifles are too slow. Lever and pump rifles can't be fired prone.

The thing is, magazine size has nothing to do with the rifle.

Insert a 100 round magazine into any rifle, and it becomes a rifle with a 100 round magazine.

Insert a 3 round magazine into an AR-15, and that AR-15 becomes a rifle with a 3 round magazine.

Instead of supporting a ruling merely because of precedent, how about supporting a ruling because it complies with the Constitution?

The rate of fire will be one round for every trigger pull. Perhaps guns with less recoil could provide a higher rate of aimed fire, but that isn't really something that justifies regulation.

Expensive and well-made guns will be more accurate than cheap and poorly-made guns. But unless a gun is so poorly-made that it is a danger, that isn't really something that justifies regulation.

Range and recoil depend on the round being chambered. Some rounds have more range and/or recoil than other rounds. Again nothing that merits regulation.

Ergonomics are not anything that would justify regulation either.

Ammunition capacity has nothing to do with the gun. It is related solely to magazines (I'm presuming of course that we are talking about guns that accept detachable magazines). Regulations on magazines might be something to be debated, but that would be a different subject than regulating guns.

That's not an issue that would merit regulation however.

Not really. For guns that accept detachable magazines, the ammo capacity is solely determined by the magazine you insert into them.

Not really an issue that merits regulation.

Such guns have no place with the FBI or police either.

 

When the left tries to violate people's civil liberties, people will stand up to them.

There is nothing bad about gun culture.

People who have a problem with gun culture need to be reeducated.

There is nothing wrong with guns being everywhere.

That will make for more cases of self defense.

There is nothing unhealthy about people being defiant when someone tries to violate their civil liberties.

If you use the term military style, then the question of whether they are used by the military is quite relevant.

Guns that are not used by the military are not military style.

An example of a military-style weapon would be the English longbow.

The police seem to think that 30 round rifle magazines are appropriate for defense against criminals.

If you like guns of a certain design, go ahead and buy that design. But be aware that you don't get to choose for other people.

Actually that is exactly what it is intended to do.

Our freedom and civil liberties have not gone anywhere.

 

when you see nonsense like "gun fetishing" that shows that the poster is not motivated by controlling criminals but rather has an inane cultural hatred towards lawful gun ownership-and when you understand that (as you do) their schemes that they dishonestly claim are crime control measures, make sense as weapons against the culture of self reliance and independence: values that terrify the nanny state fan boys

 

Regulation of interstate commerce has limits to it though. It only covers the movement of stuff across state lines.

The trouble is, gun control is not about public safety or the general welfare.

Outlawing pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and flash suppressors has zero to do with public safety.

Gun control is only about violating people's civil liberties for no reason.

I see no problem with the wording.

What would the problem be?

So some people in California get murdered with other kinds of weapons instead of with guns.

Why does that matter? They are still just as dead no matter what kind of weapon was used to kill them.

 

the supreme court might not roll back the idiotic mutation of the commerce clause by the FDR statist regime but it certainly has shown a massive reticence to expand that nonsense. Remember five of the nine justices found that obama care could not be justified by the commerce clause and the court has become a bit better since then.

 

Interesting you responded to that post and ignored my others. Regardless, I was answering a question someone else asked, that I have asked myself because it is nonsensical to have such a negative reaction to a rifle that shoots an intermediate (at best) caliber at a normal rifle velocity, when so many other rifles shoot much more powerful ammunition, but because they have wood stocks and don't look like a 'military machine gun', the public loathes the AR-15 with it's intermediate cartridge and 'scary' looks, but thinks a .3030 that has a wood stock is A-OK.

In fact, there is a wood stock version of the AR-15, called a Mini-14, but once you take off the 'furniture' (the exterior cosmetics, and stock, barrel shroud (which only exists so you don't get 3rd degree burns on your hands from grabbing a near red-hot barrel), the innards behave identically, and if you show both weapons to many civilians who have little to no actual knowledge of guns, they'll say ban the AR but the Mini is perfectly fine. Oy, vey.

 

"Learned to accept"??? Bucko, that's the law of the land and has been since 1791 or thereabouts. It was only in the last quarter century or so that concept even became remotely controversial, and I'm not even 'old' yet, but I learned to shoot in Boy Scouts and at high school, and routinely saw students with full gunracks in their trucks in the school parking lot when in high school, at a still-existing school I could get to in about 12-14 minutes if traffic were light. I've even thought about going back and starting all over again! But I think I'd get some funny looks, and it's pretty likely there isn't a soul there that I know.

Regardless, I am again off point. Whether you want to make semantic arguments about a 'well regulated militia', when by now you damn well should know that 'well regulated' means in working order, like a clock that tells time properly is 'well regulated', and that all males between 17 and 45 are, according to existing and current federal law, members of the US Militia (though I'd bet 99% of them don't know that), and that given the Court decisions none of this matters anyway.

Which is a common sense position that I agree with, and that everyone else did until not so long ago.

Maybe it's because of my time working for Uncle Sam, but I do not see a person with an AR (or any other rifle) properly strapped on their back as a threat. When I was in Uniform, during certain periods pretty much everyone I was around walked around like that, and since no harm came to me, I got accustomed to it being a safe situation. Walking in somewhere with it in your hand, and waving it around a covering people with it is a whole different thing, but that is not at all what you indicated.

Also, in case you haven't figured it out, in many (but not all) cases, those who pose with kids, or for xmas cards, or what have you, are doing it to stick their fingers in the eyes of people like you, and to get exactly this reaction. I admit, it makes me chuckle a bit to, seeing people get all worked up over nothing.

As for 'guns everywhere', welcome to Florida (and many other States!). We have so many carriers here that you cannot go out in public and NOT be around multiple of them. In a line at Home Depot that's more than a couple of folks, and someone is legally armed. Possibly even if it is just a couple of folks. Yes, in church, though I haven't set foot in one in years, it is not a prohibited place here, though schools are, but I THINK (and don't quote me on this) that a licensed carrier can have a concealed weapon in their car when dropping off or picking up a student. Again... I think. I don't have kids, so I've never had to double check that.

Legal carriers are not the people you have to worry about, even stuffed into the 1 train going from South Ferry to 42nd Street. Though you should probably get off at the next stop and take the express 2, it's a LOT faster. But I digress.

It is now the law of the land, and arguably always has been, it's just that places like NY, NJ, CA, IL, and maybe one or two others have violated those rights for generations and been allowed to get away with it. And they are presently trying to get around Bruen, but the cases are falling like dominoes all across the country. The ATF was stripped of it's 'authority' (that it never actually had) to regulate pistols with braces (though I'm not sure I understand why that would be more problematic than a pistol without a brace), and will likely lose their ability to just decide to redefine what is and is not a 'machine gun', so all those folks who kept their bump stocks instead of turning them in a few years back, which is about 99.9% of people who owned them, will be able to dig them back up out of the garden, put 'em back on the gun, and party on.

It's possible the FOPA, which is the law that banned post-1986 private ownership of 'machine guns' (based on manufacture date, not a ban of those that existed) might be in jeopardy because that was not a historical precedent and only started in 1986, but it is different from some of ATFs arbitrary decisions to rewrite laws (which they don't have the power to do), at least this one was an actual Act of Congress, so we'll see what it's fate becomes. It would be nice to be able to own a legal 'machine gun' without paying $30,000 for one, but the current owners who DID pay that premium are gonna see the value chopped by about 90%.

Life will go on. You may, someday, even find that one of those evil gun carriers at church or elsewhere in public might just save your life, or that of someone you care about.

What would be your attitude then, knowing that but for that evil armed civilian, you might be dead?

 

I missed this part the first time, my apologies.

The reason so many of us ex-military types want the AR-style (being hyper technical, to be an AR-15 it has to be Colt branded, because they own that, but they can't prevent people from making one that looks just like it) is because basic training works. I can open, clean, reassemble that thing in 60 seconds blindfolded, and not because I learned recently, but because what I learned in basic has stuck in my muscle memory all these years. Why would I want to get something that I am not familiar with and don't even know how to disassemble?

And please tell me, exactly how many rounds is sufficient for a self-defense situation? Be careful with your answer, as you'll have to cover every realistic potential scenario. TIA.

 

it is too bad that those who want to limit honest citizens to x amount of rounds could not be held responsible if said limit causes a lawful defender to die. But those of us who are professionals in this area know that instigators of violent confrontations neither obey such stupid (or valid malum per se) laws and will prepare and premeditate their violence. A defender usually does not have much time to respond and often is limited to the number of rounds in the one magazine in the firearm

ANYONE who wants to limit the number of rounds you have is trying to handicap you in a violent confrontation with a violent criminal. Apologists for such a disgusting limitation pretend that is not the intention but I deny that. Even someone with the IQ of a salamander has to understand that fact and when they continue to push for such limitations, they CLEARLY support the obvious consequences

 

In 1934, there had been no SCOTUS decisions where the federal government had successfully defended a federal law infringing the the right of the People to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS in Cruikshank had noted "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. Regardless of the ability of the states to regulate firearms, SCOTUS had affirmed that the federal government had no Constitutional authority to do so.

In McCulloch v Maryland (1819), Chief Justice Marshall insisted that "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal . . . to say that such an act was not the law of the land." In United States v Darby, Justice Stone wrote: "Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause."

Since at the time of the passing of the NFA 1934 the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes had been affirmed by SCOTUS, any law which infringed that right using the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional, and not a power entrusted to the government, and thus not the law of the land.

 

The Constitution grants Congress a number of powers that could be used to regulate firearms. For example, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This power has been used in the past to regulate firearms sales and trafficking across state lines.

Additionally, Congress has the power to raise and support armies, which could be interpreted as allowing for some regulation of firearms in the military context. Congress also has the power to regulate the militia, which could be interpreted as allowing for some regulation of firearms among civilian militia groups.

Finally, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to allow for some regulation of firearms in the interest of public safety. This means that Congress may have the authority to pass laws regulating the sale, possession, and use of firearms, as long as these laws are narrowly tailored to address specific public safety concerns and do not unduly burden the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

 

the supreme court has demonstrated constantly that it understands that the FDR mythology concerning the Commerce Clause is disfavored. 5 justices rejected the Obama claim that the CC allowed Obama care though Roberts -in complete rejection of the Obama attorney's claims, held that it was a permissible tax.

The militia crap is just that-no gun control scheme has been based on that. Militia groups are not under the control of the federal government so that idea is a fail. It is obvious to anyone who understands both history and constitutional law that the founders saw firearms as an area where only the states should act.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this false claim -- it remains false.
Why do you keep repeating a claim you know is false?

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-843

 

It's like he hasn't even heard of Bruen.

 

maybe the ostrich syndrome?

 

Maybe it's a variation on the Big Lie:
"If I lie to myself loudly enough and often enough I, wont believe it."

 

That only justifies regulating the transfer of guns across state lines. It does not authorize anything more significant than that.

Only if the government organizes them into a militia, at which point the courts will be forced to rule that they as militiamen have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

That ruling is contrary to the Tenth Amendment.