Sotomayor, et al: Assault weapons are "commonly available semi-automatic rifles".

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Mungo Jerry, Jun 19, 2024.

  1. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    60,582
    Likes Received:
    33,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe the rightwing extremist who tried to shoot up those kids in that Knoxville church also used a shotgun. Thankfully, while 7 were injured, the 2 who died I believe were adults. One of whom charged him to protect the kids.
     
  2. Mungo Jerry

    Mungo Jerry Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2024
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male

    The rifle under discussion is an AR15.
    An 'assault weapon'.

    Commonly available.
     
  3. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    27,520
    Likes Received:
    14,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, AR15

    "He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles"

    Where did she say "assault weapon"?

    Where is the disconnect? Can you not see, you worded the thread title differently? It's not a big deal, but what's the point in denying it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2024
  4. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    25,180
    Likes Received:
    17,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just imagine if he knew what he was doing.
     
  5. Mungo Jerry

    Mungo Jerry Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2024
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    You know she was talking about AR15s.
    You know AR15s are 'assault weapons'.
    Where is the disconnect?
     
  6. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    27,520
    Likes Received:
    14,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See red in my post you replied to.

    Not in my opinion, but thanks for sharing your take on it

    I think its your inability to comprehend what people say
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2024
    Noone likes this.
  7. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    60,582
    Likes Received:
    33,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He knew what he was doing. He was just tackled by church members before he could continue.
     
    Noone likes this.
  8. Mungo Jerry

    Mungo Jerry Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2024
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    ^^
    Unfathomable irony.
     
  9. David Landbrecht

    David Landbrecht Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,079
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The argument being, apparently, that "assault weapon" wannabees are unnecessary. As long as the illustrated firearms are available, rights to be armed are preserved.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2024
    Wild Bill Kelsoe likes this.
  10. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    39,296
    Likes Received:
    15,102
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems straightforward to me. An assault weapon is a weapon used to attack a person or group of people. It could be an AR 15 or a pistol or a crowbar or an automobile. The AR15 is a rifle that can be used as an assault weapon but has other uses as well just like a crowbar or automobile.

    I think people like to massage obvious meanings to create fear or support political ideology. Just understand English words. Assault=attack. Weapon=tool used to attack. Pretty simple.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2024
  11. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    25,180
    Likes Received:
    17,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously he didn't, if he only scored two kills and allowed himself to get tackled.
     
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    33,853
    Likes Received:
    18,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Heller was based on revisionist history, and on that fact, should be reversed.

    https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history

    it is... bad history to declare that such a ruling was a return to the “original understanding” of the amendment. And it is especially bad history to claim that the protection of an individual right was the primary reason for the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

    This is the hypocrisy of 'originalism'. Republicans will use 'originalism' when it supports their predetermined conclusions, but will ignore it when it doesn't.

    The articles points to many historical facts which underscore the overriding point that the second amendment's primary reason for existence was the preservation of the state (as in government controlled) militias because they were required for slave patrols and general policing, and for fear of being subsumed into a standing army, which they viewed, at that time, as a threat to state sovereignty. All the arguments rendered at the constitutional ratification convention spoke very little, if at all, about 'the individual right to bear arms'. Nothing in Madison's notes even mentions it.

    https://origins.osu.edu/article/second-amendment-goes-court
    Ironically, the originalist arguments in favor of an individual rights view of the Second Amendment are probably the intellectually weakest arguments to support this position. One could make a much stronger and intellectually more interesting argument in support of an individual rights view if one adopted a living constitution argument.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2024
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    33,853
    Likes Received:
    18,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the simple solution is to, by judicial decree, declare that ALL semi auto rifles are 'assault' rifles, and
    make single shot bolt action rifles and shotguns the only legal rifles for non police/military citizens, and then
    this argument is over.

    They could, if they wanted to, but they won't, of course. You know, the NRA is a big conservative donor, etc.

    From a strictly textualist perspective, the Constitution itself does not explicitly prohibit or allow the banning of fully automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Any interpretation beyond the text would require considering historical context, intent, and subsequent legal interpretations, which are outside the scope of a purely textualist approach.

    And, as far as 'originalism', forget it, all they had in 1787 were muskets, flintlock and flintlock rifles/pistols and blunderbusses for militia men and anything they used are now antique and collectible category.
     
  14. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    34,022
    Likes Received:
    22,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    not even the dissent bought into the bullshit "collective rights" nonsense that the gun banners push

    citing Saul Cornell is something you should realize is worthless to anyone who actually understands the intent of the founders. Cornell is well known as a paid whore of the gun banning foundations and he is pretty much a joke among actual legal scholars. The other guy is some minor league nobody
     
  15. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    34,022
    Likes Received:
    22,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    where your argument fails is that not only is this wrong since those weapons are arms, you also miss the main point-NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION from a STRICTLY TEXTUALIST PERSPECTIVE empowers the federal government to ban any arm
     
  16. Mungo Jerry

    Mungo Jerry Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2024
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Quantify this.
    What USSC holdings did Heller overturn?
     
  17. Mungo Jerry

    Mungo Jerry Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2024
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    This does not change the fact liberals / leftists do -not- know an 'assault weapon' when they see one.
    But, to your point:
    What rational, reasoned argument is there for the position that 'assault weapons' are not included in the 'arms" protected by the 2nd?
    See above:
    What rational, reasoned argument is there for the position that semi/full auto rifles are not included in the 'arms" protected by the 2nd?
    The court discarded your argument 2 decades ago. Keep up.
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    33,853
    Likes Received:
    18,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where your argument fails is that your premise is absurd the Constitution cannot possibly spell out everything that the Supreme Court must do or not do for hundreds of years in the future so totally a bogus argument.

    Your argument misses a crucial point from the get-go. The Constitution, while it doesn't spell out the banning of arms, grants Congress the power to enact necessary and proper laws through the Necessary and Proper Clause. This isn't some minor detail—it's a fundamental part of how our government operates. Congress can and does regulate firearms under this clause, end of story.

    Then there's the Commerce Clause, another pillar that you conveniently ignore. This clause empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, a foundation for numerous federal regulations, including those on firearms. To say the federal government can't touch arms is not just wrong; it's willfully blind to how our legal system works.

    And let's talk about the Second Amendment. Yes, it protects the right to keep and bear arms, but even the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller made it clear that this right isn't without limits. The Court recognized that reasonable regulations are permissible. Ignoring these judicial interpretations is not textualism—it's fantasy.

    Finally, you fail to grasp the distinction between federal and state powers. The Constitution doesn't explicitly ban federal regulation of arms, leaving room for legislative action. States have their own regulatory powers, but that doesn't mean the federal government is powerless. In fact, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause give it all the authority it needs. And don't give me any BS about FDR and the Commerce Clause-- the NFA has been upheld.

    So let's cut through the nonsense: from a truly textualist perspective, the Constitution supports federal regulation of arms, including automatic weapons. Pretending otherwise is not just a misinterpretation—it's a deliberate distortion.
     
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    33,853
    Likes Received:
    18,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well let's take a look with Justice Stevens among the dissenters actually wrote

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
    .

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to the widespread fear that the new national government would destroy the state militias through the exercise of its new-found powers under the Constitution. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms

    Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Moreover you're incessant trafficking in cheap shot descriptors betrays your credibility.
    ******************
    Saul Cornell is a highly respected historian and legal scholar specializing in American constitutional thought, particularly the Second Amendment. He holds the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University and has previously been a professor at Ohio State University. Cornell earned his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and has authored significant works such as "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America" and "The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828."

    His expertise is recognized widely, with his works being cited by legal scholars and courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also contributed to numerous amicus briefs in key Second Amendment cases. Additionally, Cornell is a strong advocate for using new media to teach history and co-authored the textbook "Visions of America," which employs visual materials to highlight competing historical visions in the U.S. [[❞]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Cornell) [[❞]](https://www.fordham.edu/academics/departments/history/faculty/saul-cornell/) [[❞]](https://fedsoc.org/contributors/saul-cornell) [[❞]](https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/cornell-saul) [[❞]](https://origins.osu.edu/author/saul-cornell?language_content_entity=en).

     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2024
  20. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    562
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You show your ignorance

    https://www.minnpost.com/environmen...-year-mining-moratorium-in-watershed-of-bwca/

    https://smallcaps.com.au/biden-creates-national-monument-arizona-bans-new-mining/

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/biden-oil-mining-alaska-restrictions-00153219
     
  21. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So want all guns gone
     
  22. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    27,520
    Likes Received:
    14,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  23. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    58,630
    Likes Received:
    17,763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nor do they care. Making law on the basis of a one off event that would have been far worse if the shooter had opted to use one of his aircraft instead of any rifles at all.
     
    ptif219 likes this.
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    33,853
    Likes Received:
    18,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The conservative Court in Heller discarded my argument rather recently in terms of Supreme Court years and again only by 5-4 party line vote which means it's not a very strong precedent. A liberal court will definitely reverse Heller.

    An assault rifle is whatever the court says it is --I say it's all semi-automatic rifles.

    Since Heller is founded on revisionist history Heller will eventually be reversed then there will be no individual right to bear arms.

    I can live with an individual right to bear arms with only a guarantee of a couple of handguns and a couple of bolt action single shot rifles and or a shotgun.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2024
  25. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    34,022
    Likes Received:
    22,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    he's a paid whore of anti gun foundations. He is cited by other anti gun "scholars"
    SPEAKING OF NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

    where is there any CITATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVING ANY POWER TO REGULATE PRIVATE ARMS? Stevens pretends the second amendment was only about a militia right (yet he authored an article saying the second should be CHANGED) but what he never explains is WTF did the founders give the government any power? I already explained that-he assumed that the founders SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE NEW GOVERNMENT THAT POWER and thus he ASSUMED IT EXISTED

    he gets thrashed on that

    tell me what does this last paragraph of his dissent in HELLER MEAN?
    the Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
     

Share This Page