Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority in the Heller case, disagrees. You do have a right to bear arms, but that right is not unlimited.
"the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned". District of Columbia v. Heller: Scalia’s Majority Opinion - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online
Wrong read the majority decision for yourself on Heller Page 55. That is but a blurb taken completely out of context.
Yes, I'll admit the AR15 (and other semi auto assault weapons) function the same as other semi autos. But I'd like you to admit that a lot of the features on the AR15 share more than cosmetic similarities to the M16... namely features for battlefield use that allow for rounds to be fired as quickly as possible for sustained amounts of time. Pistol grips to reduce wrist strain during sustained fire. Features to minimize recoil thus allowing less time to reaim. Barrell shrouds to minimize heat transfer to the hand, again allowing sustained fire.
Pistol grips would clearly tend to exacerbate wrist strain. Without a pistol grip more of the recoil is borne by the shoulder rather than the shooting hand. What are you talking about?
Barrell [sic] shrouds are a "shoulder thing that goes up," as any self respecting gun control advocate knows.
AR 15s generally do not use barrel shrouds. They are most common on shotguns and sub-machine guns. You could ban them if you wish, and I doubt that few would care. It would be similar to banning spoilers in an effort to reduce traffic deaths.
Yes, I'll admit the AR15 (and other semi auto assault weapons) function the same as other semi autos. But I'd like you to admit that a lot of the features on the AR15 share more than cosmetic similarities to the M16... namely features for battlefield use that allow for rounds to be fired as quickly as possible for sustained amounts of time. Pistol grips to reduce wrist strain during sustained fire. Features to minimize recoil thus allowing less time to reaim. Barrell shrouds to minimize heat transfer to the hand, again allowing sustained fire.
So your issue with the AR is that it doesn't suck?
Wrong read the majority decision for yourself on Heller Page 55. That is but a blurb taken completely out of context.
I see it differently
This is from page 54-55
Quote:
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.
Also from page 54
Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
............................................
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Wrist strain during sustained fire? ROFLMAO. Have you ever fired an AR15 or anything similar? You can put the buttstock against your nose and fire it without breaking your nose! There is no wrist strain! There is hardly any recoil! Some of you should study before you spew your vomit everywhere. It only shows how much you don't know about the subject!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston
Yes, I'll admit the AR15 (and other semi auto assault weapons) function the same as other semi autos. But I'd like you to admit that a lot of the features on the AR15 share more than cosmetic similarities to the M16... namely features for battlefield use that allow for rounds to be fired as quickly as possible for sustained amounts of time. Pistol grips to reduce wrist strain during sustained fire. Features to minimize recoil thus allowing less time to reaim. Barrell shrouds to minimize heat transfer to the hand, again allowing sustained fire.
Seems Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority in the Heller case, disagrees. You do have a right to bear arms, but that right is not unlimited.
"the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned". District of Columbia v. Heller: Scalia’s Majority Opinion - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online
Thanks for paraphrase.
"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."
I think the rights have already expanded over the years, no need to expand.
Then at least stay the status quo then.
By the way, why not? It seems that when we expand that right, our crime rate goes down and now at the historical low. You don't care about children?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
