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.
So, where Justice Scalia opines that the decision prohibits a restriction specifically on "handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," that doesn't count? The whole case turned on the premise that handguns could not be restricted. However Scalia expressly signaled that "weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned" by prescribing to the proposition that "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'" was permissible.
I never mentioned this particular model nor argued that it is automatic, but feel free to keep shaking your fist angrily at the sky.
And the Supreme Court has already signaled that their ownership absolutely can be prohibited. The question is whether they should be and I asked you whether you believe the benefits of their ownership
And a majority opinion, such as Scalia's in Heller, is one where at least 51% of the judges agree. A concurrence is an agreement with the result of the majority (or a plurality, as the case may be). Scalia's opinion was a majority opinion of the court, not a concurrence. That you don't understand the distinction really undercuts your assertion that you are some type of expert on Constitutional law.
The point of a debate is what should be done, not what is established. Laws can be changed, courts can abrogate their own opinions, Constitutions can be amended. If you don't think what we are discussing matters, just take your ball and go home.
Why do you argue that I not know about firearm laws or Constitutional matters within the United States? It seems the converse is true.
Really? The guy walked into a church, unarmed, and used his mental health issues to somehow "kill people with his mind?" Or are you honestly telling me that he would have been able to kill 20+ people if he had been armed only with a hammer? Come on - nobody is buying it. If he didn't have access to a high-end gun - an "assault weapon" just to use that term to annoy the ignorant right their laughable parsing of semantics - he wouldn't have been able to kill all those people.
Honestly, listen to yourselves and step away from the gun cult for a moment and THINK.
If a known drunk gets in his car and murders a half-dozen people outside a bar by running them over, do we stand around and wring our hands over the "sad mental health and addition issues" involved and pretend access to the car had nothing to do with the killings? Nobody is that stupid, and I find it very amusing that the far-right who normally pretends mental health issues don't exist and people just need to "man up and take it!" are now simpering about the poor killer's mental state just to protect their sacred mass-murder guns.
You cannot with a straight face justify allowing any lunatic, thug, or irresponsible idiot to own a gun, nor can you come up with a single reason why the average citizen needs a weapon designed to do one thing - kill as many people as possible in a large area. We don't allow idiots who are dangerous on the road to keep on driving, nor do we allow the average citizen to buy a pile of big-rigs, no questions asked, and plow them into people on the roads. Guns are not sacred, but lives should be. Sad that this should need explaining to the "Christian," gun-loving right.
Well put, and I agree with you, but sadly, I don't think banning such weapons would prove an effective way to prevent or even reduce the incidents of terrorism, in part because there are over 3 million such weapons already out there, among over 300 million guns distributed amidst over 350 million Americans, many of which are idiots but still able to do great harm to large numbers of people if that becomes their mission in life, hopefully at the end of their life...
Too bad Kolbe and several other appellate cases support my position rather than yours.
Maybe you're better off sticking to the personal attacks like this rather than ineffectively arguing substance and the legal implications of Heller, which you obviously didn't read or don't understand (or both).
M-16's which are capable of full auto fire, are not sold commercially to civilians. AR-15's are semi-auto, and in common use, so under the Supreme Court's ruling can NOT be banned.
I've come to the conclusion that discussing this with TEPLimey is getting to the point of running around in circles. I don't know about you but I'm tired of banging my head up against the wall. One thing I've discovered is that you can't argue with ignorance. He's got it in spades.
Too bad Kolbe and several other appellate cases support my position rather than yours.
Maybe you're better off sticking to the personal attacks like this rather than ineffectively arguing substance and the legal implications of Heller, which you obviously didn't read or don't understand (or both).
Listen you just want to keep arguing for the sake of arguing. From this point on don't expect a response from me.
Well with all the gun lovers in this forum-- what is your answer to stop these tragedies? What would you do, man every location with an armed guard? Please let us hear the solution to this horrible problem.
You are never going to stop evil. Read the Bible sometime.
A weapon is only as evil as the person holding it.
There is evil all around you everyday. No one can predict when it will raise its ugly head.
The answer is, to be ready to protect your own life, from evil. It is not my job, or the job of the law to do so. Because everyone on earth, has the liberty to kill you, if they want you dead.
I will never allow other people to think for and own me enough, to think I am their property to protect.
I want you to fear me! That is the point, that keeps me safe and my property in place.
I've come to the conclusion that discussing this with TEPLimey is getting to the point of running around in circles. I don't know about you but I'm tired of banging my head up against the wall. One thing I've discovered is that you can't argue with ignorance. He's got it in spades.
The AR-15 is by far the most popular rifle in the United States. I don't know what could be considered more "Common Use" than that.
I have not said anything about all of the post except what I bolded. And you are correct that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right applies to individuals. My point is that if you do the research, the intent of the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is clarified. The "militia" is everyone. You yourself said that the Supreme Court is not infallible.... I agree, we just don't agree on this issue. I do respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. I have stated before...... if the prescribed process to amend the Constitution is followed, I will accept the outcome.
The men who wrote the Constitution (note all men) also wrote that blacks were deserving of only 3/5ths a white man's vote. Also not only fallible but lived over 200 years ago, when guns were actually used to hunt. Not for sport but to eat, kill indians and bears! Just saying...
Just saying that people who continue to insist what the founding fathers had in mind then, in the context of that day, as if pertaining in the same way to the realities of our times today, are badly mistaken and/or invoking the brilliance of our founding fathers to make an argument that simply doesn't work anymore now like it did then.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
I've come to the conclusion that discussing this with TEPLimey is getting to the point of running around in circles. I don't know about you but I'm tired of banging my head up against the wall. One thing I've discovered is that you can't argue with ignorance. He's got it in spades.
You argued that the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment under Heller. I highlighted for you the relevant sections of Heller, explained why it holds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to certain categories of weaponry, and even brought to your attention several pieces of jurisprudence (including a directly on-point Fourth Circuit decision from this year) that addressed and rejected your interpretation of Heller. You apparently have no response.
If you want to call that "arguing in circles" and throw in the towel while resorting to personal attacks, so be it.
The men who wrote the Constitution (note all men) also wrote that blacks were deserving of only 3/5ths a white man's vote. Also not only fallible but lived over 200 years ago, when guns were actually used to hunt. Not for sport but to eat, kill indians and bears! Just saying...
Just saying that people who continue to insist what the founding fathers had in mind then, in the context of that day, as if pertaining in the same way to the realities of our times today, are badly mistaken and/or invoking the brilliance of our founding fathers to make an argument that simply doesn't work anymore now like it did then.
Then urge your political representatives to start the process of a Constitutional Convention, and repeal the Second Amendment. IMHO, our own government has been more tyrannical that Great Britain in many ways, especially under Obama. There is more a need for legal, gun ownership today than ever.
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.
