Drlee wrote:Thank you VS for posting the supreme court decision. You are making our point for us and have effectively rebutted Blackjack's assertion that the second amendment is about.... "Our national self-defense is predicated on such weapons, and the purpose of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about the militia (all able-bodied men) having the right to keep and bear weapons appropriate for participation in a militia."
That is a deliberate misreading of the SCOTUS opinion. Banning assault weapons is banning an entire class of weapons for a lawful purpose, being part of a well-regulated militia, whether it is formally organized or not. An AR-15 is not substantially different than a weapon issued to a typical infantry soldier.
The US also envisaged a citizen population that could be called on to put down insurrections, such as Nat Turner's rebellion. These were slave owners, after all.
Drlee wrote:Clearly the SCOTUS does not believe this and stated the purpose of the second amendment in its opinion.
Actually, SCOTUS was expanding on the stated purpose. It's not just for being part of a well-regulated militia, but a lawful purpose is also self-defense.
Drlee wrote:There is a push to ban "unusual" weapons such as military assault rifles.
There is nothing unusual about a military assault rifle in a well-regulated militia. There isn't anything unusual about them in general. There are literally millions of them out there.
Drlee wrote:The court has already ruled on this when it upheld the original assault weapons ban and the current state laws banning them.
Congress has plenary authority to regulate commerce. They can ban the purchase or sale of anything. They cannot ban lawful possession. That is why it is unlawful to purchase an AR-15 in California, but it is perfectly legal to make your own by machining out an 80% lower. At your advanced age, the concept of doing something like that would have been beyond the abilities of a novice. Even printing out a well-formatted letter would have been a bit of a chore for a non-secretary with a typewriter as late as the early 1980s. Today, we don't even have a role like typist or typesetter. Those days are gone. So to are the days when only someone with machinist skills could make an AR-15 lower or a high capacity magazine.
Ghost GunnerWelcome to the brave new world where skill defeats bullshit.
Drlee wrote:People like Godstud and myself also favor the banning of the carrying of pistols in public and/or concealed.
People like me favor carrying pistols in public, as well as concealed weapons. It might go some way help restore public decorum and good manners.
Drlee wrote:Clearly the opinion authorizes what we want to accomplish.
The opinion doesn't authorize anything. It recognizes the right enumerated in the Second Amendment.
Victorious Spolia wrote:That ban, really just banned the feature of full-auto fire; whereas, banning all assault-style weapons would likely be viewed as banning an entire class of arms favored for lawful self-defense, many of which are structurally and mechanically capable of full-auto fire, but are only limited as to not do so (i.e. by omitting certain parts) in compliance with the law.
And once again, that is commercial restriction. However, you do have to apply for full automatic weapons and pay a tax. I generally recommend against it, because people in power will look for any sort of process failure as a reason to prosecute people exercising their constitutional rights. However, I do recommend knowing how to make an auto seer so that if these people try to enforce bullshit under color of law, we will have the means to counter them by force if necessary.
Anyway, as I've said, it is pointless. The San Bernardino terrorists could have lawfully made an AR. Instead, they just violated the law in acquiring the weapons. People who are going to commit mass murder are likely to break other laws too. Drlee is inclined to disarm people like himself, while leaving the more dangerous elements of society fully armed.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden