The AR15 IS a weapon of war and IS designed to kill people!!!!!

The AR 15 was DESIGNED to kill people. That wasn't just the expected use. Killing people was what the designers worked hard to optimize.

Yes, the SC tossed out the fundamental purpose clearly stated in the 2nd amendment. They decided to ERASE half of that amendment!!!

THEN, they claim to be following that amendment!!!

That would be hilarious if it didn't lead to the insane idea that public safety is no longer a constitutional objective.

 

As the right to keep and bear arms is about killing people...
...it seems like the AR15 fits in perfectly.

The right of the people
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia.
The people.
Thus, any reference to the "well regulated militia" is irrelevant in determining who holds the right protected by the 2nd.
As no one has a right to serve in the militia, the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be attached to service in same.
Your argument: Irrelevant.

The enshrinement of constitutional rights -- necessarily and intentionally -- takes certain policy choices off the table.

 

no it wasn't. and the ones sold on the civilian market were marketed as hunting/varmint rifles. What do you claim (I need a good laugh since I used to teach constitutional law) the first half of the second amendment is about. what are MILITIA weapons to be used for?

 

exactly -what does he think the first part of the amendment does? I need a laugh

 

The primary issue is whether you accept that it is legitimate for the SC to erase the first half of the 2nd amendment.

That is PRECISELY what the SC has done to support their very Republican view that public safety is essentially irrelevant.

My view is that it requires a constitutional amendment to do that.

Oh, and it is also sociopathic as we have tested and proven to be the case.

 

you still seem unable to tell us what your erroneous interpretation of that first half is.

if public safety was all that counted-we wouldn't have a fourth amendment, a fifth amendment, or a sixth amendment for that matter. you seem unable to understand that freedom from government at the federal level was the goal of the bill of rights. law enforcement was almost specifically a STATE issue. not a federal issue

one last time-what do you think the first half of the second amendment was suppose to do and why does it matter given the federal government was NEVER GIVEN ANY GUN CONTROL POWER in Article One Section Eight

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part defines the justification for allowing citizens to keep and bear arms.

The founders did not want a standing army.

Their alternative was to have well organized militias that would do the job that a standing army of the USA would do.

>> Of course, today we DO have a standing army, thus fully solving the need for citizens to keep and bear arms.

Were our founders to have decided to have a standing army, there wouldn't have been a reason for having the 2nd amendment.

 

All of our rights have various limitations.

One limitation involves cases where there is a public safety concern.

 

no justification was needed-the federal government was never given any gun control power. the federalists argued the bill of rights was unnecessary since the new government wasn't given any of the powers that were later negatively restricted in the Bill of rights. and here is the argument your side has never ever been able to address

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=mlr

To demonstrate that no individual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals - despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology. As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear. Such debate as the amendment received is sparse and inconclusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposition that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes.38

 

wrong-you have to demonstrate where the federal government gets that power in Article One Section Eight and it flies in the face of the other amendments in the bill of rights

and where you really fail in your argument-and where you need to actually read more is this-none of the stuff you want to pass is designed to increase public safety. Your posts are well known for advocating harassment of lawful gun owners and have almost no evidence of wanting to do anything to advance public safety

 

where did @WillReadmore go=perhaps reading something to dispute Kates' point? don't bother, there are no major league law review articles that dispute Kates' point.

 

There is no exemption for "lawful gun owners".

"Lawful gun owners" commit a lot of crimes, including being responsible for many deaths.

 

LOL - sorry guy, this is CA, and there is a LOT of cool stuff to do!

 

what sort of answer is that-if they commit crimes-they are not lawful gun owners and can be severely prosecuted. so what you are saying is you want to ban guns before "lawful" owners can use them unlawfully

I am still waiting for your argument about the first half of the second amendment somehow giving the federal government powers it was never given in Article One Section Eight

 

counting syringes in the streets of San Francisco? watching the weirdos?

 

The individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized in the US since 1776.

Given the powers enumerated to Congress in Article One, Section Eight, Clause Sixteen the Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia, nor can it protect anyone's "right" to bear arms in the service of the militia.

 

What's the denominator in this ratio?

 

Are you claiming that the government can ignore all of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS if there is a public safety concern?

 

The US has had a standing Army since 1775.

 

This argument was addressed and negated.
Repeating it will not change this.

The Constitution -- necessarily and intentionally -- takes certain "public safety" options off the table.
IOW: Find another way.

The USSC disagreed.

 

This argument was addressed and negated.
Repeating it will not change this.

 

The Constitution -- necessarily and intentionally -- takes certain "public safety" options off the table.
IOW: Find another way.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

A "lot" and "many" are open to any interpretation.

 

Kind of amazing how they don't ever seem to know this.