Assault weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment, court rules

[Broke Wave]

No it isn't poor logic. You can't arbitrarily make up classes of firearms and put the ones you don't like in a category and ban them.

Also, what weapons don't have a military application?

I'm not even making an argument against reasonable restrictions like background checks. But several states like New Jersey with their checks and "may issue" standards have effectively hollowed out the 2nd Amendment.

If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, work to repeal it. Don't rely on anti-gun judges to legislate from the bench.

So lets flip it on it's head. If we ignore the limits of the well regulated militia, what restrictions are there to the 2nd amendment if any? Can people own nuclear weapons?

 

[GunRanger]

This is fukking retarded. Liberals once again don't understand rifles and think because it looks scary it must be military.


Hopefully the supreme Court tears this shyt down

 

[JahFocus CS]

So lets flip it on it's head. If we ignore the limits of the well regulated militia, what restrictions are there to the 2nd amendment if any? Can people own nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are clearly substantively and meaningfully different from small arms/firearms. Additionally, they were invented about 150 years after the 2nd Amendment was was created... clearly nukes are not within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. We'd also have to look into the meaning of the term "arm" at the time. Did it refer to only firearms that could be manned by an individual or did it extend to things like cannons that required multiple operators? I am not sure, but that could be an interesting dimension of this discussion.

Off the top of my head, the only restrictions I support are those related to background checks and prohibiting criminals convicted of things like domestic abuse from owning firearms. I do not support things like restricting magazine capacity or certain firearm features like they love to do in California. However, I also believe the 2nd Amendment only encompasses small arms, so light arms and things like nuclear weapons () are excluded. But these distinctions are distinctions of kind, not arbitrary categorizations; semi-automatic rifles are similar to muskets in a way that missile systems simply are not.

 

[Ill Lou Malnati]

IMO, assault rifles are over the top and unecessary for the average American to have in the home, but at the same time, I don't think it should be illegal. It's not a topic I'm that passionate about though. My only real concern is keeping all guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but that's a losing battle, apparently.

 

[Prodyson]

Ya'll not looking at this the right way. If this isn't overturned by the Supreme Court, y'all better start snitching on these racists living in these rural areas with these weapons.

Either they get locked up or get their guns taken. Either is fine with me.

 

[OneManGang]

Nuclear weapons are clearly substantively and meaningfully different from small arms/firearms. Additionally, they were invented about 150 years after the 2nd Amendment was was created... clearly nukes are not within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. We'd also have to look into the meaning of the term "arm" at the time. Did it refer to only firearms that could be manned by an individual or did it extend to things like cannons that required multiple operators? I am not sure, but that could be an interesting dimension of this discussion.

Off the top of my head, the only restrictions I support are those related to background checks and prohibiting criminals convicted of things like domestic abuse from owning firearms. I do not support things like restricting magazine capacity or certain firearm features like they love to do in California. However, I also believe the 2nd Amendment only encompasses small arms, so light arms and things like nuclear weapons () are excluded. But these distinctions are distinctions of kind, not arbitrary categorizations; semi-automatic rifles are similar to muskets in a way that missile systems simply are not.

Your second line kind of sucks if you're using that as the basis of your argument. Assault rifles weren't invented much earlier than nukes were. So according to you they shouldn't be protected either right?

 

[JahFocus CS]

Your second line kind of sucks if you're using that as the basis of your argument. Assault rifles weren't invented much earlier than nukes were. So according to you they shouldn't be protected either right?

Refer to the last sentence of my previous post you just quoted.

Nuclear weapons are obviously substantively different from small arms. It's absurd to try to draw an equivalence. My point was that no one alive when the 2nd Amendment was passed could have imagined anything remotely like nuclear weapons. They were nowhere near being on the radar. On the other hand, a semi-automatic rifle is nothing more than an improvement upon a musket; it is a small arm that shoots bullets.

 

[OneManGang]

Refer to the last sentence of my previous post you just quoted.

Nuclear weapons are obviously substantively different from small arms. It's absurd to try to draw an equivalence. My point was that no one alive when the 2nd Amendment was passed could have imagined anything remotely like nuclear weapons. They were nowhere near being on the radar.

It's obviously a facetious comparison. However, the point was to establish the limits of the second amendment. Where do you draw the line? I'd even argue that muskets are about as far away from assault rifles as missiles are, just opposite ends of the spectrum. If shotguns aren't protected (are they? not sure ), then there could be a case for assault rifles not being protected as well. I was just pointing out that time invented after the passing of the 2nd amendment is a bad route to argue.

 

[newworldafro]

Here.
We.
Go.



Again, this is why I don't get embroiled with political parties. This is why one day I'm calling Democrats fukkbois, and Republicans pieces of shiit the next day. Everybody should be free thinking enough to release the mental/verbal Kraken on parties, individuals, etc on their bullshiiit.

It's tough to separate issue from parties, though.
I try to look at issues specifically, which means an Independent.
Which means I can't be a comfortable sheeple zombie ideologically.
I actually have to be an objective thinker.

Clearly this is some bulllshiit from some liberal judges....this time.....

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

at "they're just better muskets"

Court coming for your piece of shyt antique musket handed down from generations on the mantle above the fireplace, too.

You won't be able to kill each other so easily, or kill yourselves, and America will be a more peaceful and happier society.

 

[88m3]

DEY TOOK EURRR GUNZ!

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

No it isn't poor logic. You can't arbitrarily make up classes of firearms and put the ones you don't like in a category and ban them.
.

Yes you can.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I have no idea why this has to be so difficult...It's like insurance, you guys like living in some weirdo wild west while the rest of the developed world figured this out decades ago.

 

[El Bombi]

Arms is arms.

No matter how big or small it is.

Rocket Launchers, Flame Throwers, Bombs, Silencers, etc should all be legal.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Support government authoritarianism brehs.