Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Why the distinction with semi-automatic rifles weapons like the AR-15 and fully automatic weapons, which the Heller decision specifically held out of 2A coverage? Neither existed at the time it was written so clearly there is an interpretation of what is considered to be reasonably defined "arms" people should have access to for legitimate defense and sporting purposes.
Just curious on your thoughts about all the shootings in Chicago and the people following the guns laws there? Are you saying that you think criminals are following gun laws?
I would tend to agree, though I am always surprised at how much it costs for the Federal government to do something poorly.
There's nothing an AR-15 is going to do for you hunting coyotes and wolves that a bolt-action rifle won't do for you, in my experience, but I guess that seems like something people probably do now with AR-15s.
Well, the Second Amendment didn't say something like "flintlock pistols are okay, but muskets and blunderbusses aren't."
A quick search puts the number of guns that fall into the AR-15 category at 20-30 Million. So I think a high end estimate would put the buy back somewhere in the 15 Billion range. A lot of people would buy new guns so some of that would be offset by new revenues. Maybe we increase lisencing fees also and keep access available but much harder as you noted. It's not a small number but I also think it's workable.
I was just referencing it as something that somebody else has mentioned, not endorsing it.
I wrote a lengthy post on it a page or two back.
I believe the politically correct terms are elderly, senior citizens, or members of the greatest generation, not zombies.
I guess if you're targeting multiple targets with distance between them, you may have a chance with a semi-auto rifle that a bolt-action won't give you. But I'm sure that happens.
So what? You think the Constitution was written by people who didn't understand technology improves?
If the Founding Fathers didn't intend it to be an individual right, why is it in what is known as the Bill of Rights and completely surrounded by other amendments that confer, enumerate or clarify individual rights? Seems incredibly straightforward to me.
I think it is horrible but it doesn't mean we just remove the gun laws from Chicago. I am not expert on Chicago but imagine they have a similar issue as NYC which I am more familiar with since I live here. In NYC studies have shown that 90% of guns used in crimes are actually brought in from out of state from states with lax gun laws. Clearly the laws in NY state are having an impact on people getting guns in NY so they need to go out of state where there are more lax gun laws.
I'll look for it but that seems high to me. Even if you assume 60B, as a predominantly one-time expense it's pretty easily absorbed in the budget and as I mentioned could be partially offset by pigovian taxes.
It's the only one of those that has a caveat at the beginning. If it wasn't for the purpose of a militia, then why mention a militia?
Why did you ask the question about Chicago then. ETA - you also nicely ignored the rest of my post.
And this is the final unanswerable question that destroys the 2nd Amendment argument. Because if the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to include AR-15s, it can be interpreted to include ALL weapons, including nuclear weapons.
I don't think your question makes the point you are suggesting it does. Yes, I think they were aware that technology advances. But I also think that there would have also been additional verbiage like "this includes Cletus' bazooka and high capacity rapid fire weaponry." I think it was purposely left vague so that it would be revisited as technology progressed, not so that all killing machines for all time are legal.
Not really sure what the legal distinction is but I don't have a real problem with the constitutionality of a full auto ban. To me, a moral and responsible person will aim and pull the trigger once for each legitimate target and be responsible for each bullet sent downrange. His brain is engaged on each shot whether the gun action is semi auto, bolt or pump. Fully auto you pull the trigger once and spray everything down range it seems like you could easily hit things you really didnt mean to hit.
Not sure if they are a good place to meet women though. I'd hate to have to break up with someone who is a better shot than I am.
I never said that. I said that some people are deterred by laws. If you commit a crime and are a criminal it obviously didn't work for that person which is why you part of criminal law is punishment.
Here is what you wrote....
I am going against the point that it we shouldn't have a law because it will just be broken by someone.
Well of course we should have laws except I never understood why it is illegal for moose to have sex on city streets in Fairbanks Alaska.
Not high. At the extreme 30 million x $1,500 = $45 bln, plus ammunition, plus administrative costs.
I think this is a pretty reasonable point. The Supreme Court basically used the rationale of what is generally available to determine what can or can't be limited. Since the AR-15 and similar arms are ubiquitous they certainly would be covered under Heller but automatic "Machine Guns" as the court used are not. Their reasoning, which I don't really agree with is that commonly held arms are what citizens would bring to a militia vs. what an organized military would provide.
I think the most staunch gun owners realize there is a growing national sentiment to get rid of some of these weapons, hence the rapid rate of discussion here (as well as other places).
