Gunman in shooting spree at Florida high school. Many injuries. ...What is wrong in the USA? - Page 27 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14891648
Godstud wrote:I am sure the Founding Fathers also didn't know that Americans could kill so many other Americans, and children, with those gun, or they would have changed it.

About 2 seconds.


I would imagine you're right. However...2 seconds under what conditions? Most of the shooters that have done this sort of thing are not exactly combat veterans with extensive training at the practice. Even those who do have the training have to disengage the target, duck under cover if there is return fire, make the change, re-acquire the target which may have moved in the mean time and then go back to their task. Those who are not being targeted can start running and get 10-20 feet away at least.

Its a game changer.
#14891650
Godstud wrote:I am sure the Founding Fathers also didn't know that Americans could kill so many other Americans, and children, with those gun, or they would have changed it.


I kinda doubt it, innovations at the time were already indicating that gattling guns and such were the coming future of warfare. They weren't stupid. Every inventor in Europe in the late 18th and early 19th century was trying to solve the problem of single-fire by developing a cartride. The assumption that founders had so little forsight, especially with the brilliant intellects (and inventors) like Jefferson at the helm, is a bit of a stretch.

I think we should first bear in mind the intention of the amendment in this light and from that standpoint go on to interpret what sort of weapons they may have envisaged.

ALSO, They would of likely not wanted compulsory public education facilities where these things take place either if we want to be technical about all of this.
#14891651
4cal wrote:2 seconds under what conditions? Most of the shooters that have done this sort of thing are not exactly combat veterans with extensive training at the practice.


A chimpanzee could do it.
#14891720
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I kinda doubt it, innovations at the time were already indicating that gattling guns and such were the coming future of warfare.
:eh: 100 years later those things were obviously going to happen but at the time, it was not. The Gatling gun didn't come around til the 1960s and it was hardly a hand-held piece of kit. It was mobile artillery and not a rapid-fire hand-held weapon. You are quite wrong in your assumption.

It would hardly take much practice to reload an AR-15 in 2 seconds. 5 minutes of practice, to be exact.
#14891746
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." Clearly the SCOTUS does not believe this and stated the purpose of the second amendment in its opinion.
Now there is the usual nonsense in this thread asserting that there is a big push to ban weapons. This is not true. There is a push to ban "unusual" weapons such as military assault rifles. The court has already ruled on this when it upheld the original assault weapons ban and the current state laws banning them. People like Godstud and myself also favor the banning of the carrying of pistols in public and/or concealed. And the ownership and possession of weapons by certain people. See the bold area in the opinion.

Clearly the opinion authorizes what we want to accomplish.



The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms Here is the part that defines what t


The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.
#14891759
Drlee wrote: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." Clearly the SCOTUS does not believe this and stated the purpose of the second amendment in its opinion.


Well I have no idea how you are able to draw that inference from the text of the decision....like at all....perhaps you could clarify that?

For it appears to me, by seeing the militia clause as being applicable to individual civillian home-defense, SCOTUS rejected the idea that only the national guard is assumed as being what was referred to in the militia clause. Since that was my point, and you did not contradict it, my point on that particular issue actually stands. The militia clause, as understood by SCOTUS, applies to all American citizens (not just the national guard) and includes personal self-defense.

Drlee wrote:The court has already ruled on this when it upheld the original assault weapons ban and the current state laws banning them.


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.

Thus, an AK-47 that has the receiver drilled to accept the full-auto pieces (which is super-easy to do btw) is illegal (that is the feature), but the AK-47 itself is not illegal, it is a class of arm of which certain features are prohibited in regards to it. (this is also why Blackjack mentioned the commerce clause). To ban a weapon feaure as such was not considered by SCOTUS to be a violation of the second amendment (full-auto), but banning a class of weapon (as in the DC case), or even inhibiting the use of such (requiring such to be locked up, as in the DC case) was viewed as an infringement.

Thus, I don't think the full-auto ban for assault rifles, and banning assault rifles themselves, will be viewed as the same thing, especially in light of the SCOTUS ruling in 2007 that has been cited. It seems to be quite a leap of logic to make that argument.

SCOTUS, I guarantee you, would reject both legislation to limit clip sizes (because a one-round clip would be view as the same as requiring a person to lock up their chosen method of seld-defense, by hindering the free excersize therof), and legislation to allow states to ban assualt-style rifles (as they are an entire class of weapon) and not merely a feature (full-automatic).

This is given via the judicial precendent already cited.
#14891765
I vaguely remember actually reading this case or a similar case, if anyone actually intends to debate it and won't just vanish when specifics start. There's an interesting one where Scalia writes about why sawed-off shotguns are banned, something about them being weapons for criminals/terrorists and not having a legitimate self-defense use over other similar weapons. This is probably the same logic behind banning full-auto guns and why you can, for example, own an AK-47 or a shotgun but (in some states) can't own a modified AK-47 or a sawed-off shotgun.
#14891772
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 Gunner

Welcome 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.
#14891779
Hong Wu wrote:I vaguely remember actually reading this case or a similar case, if anyone actually intends to debate it and won't just vanish when specifics start. There's an interesting one where Scalia writes about why sawed-off shotguns are banned, something about them being weapons for criminals/terrorists and not having a legitimate self-defense use over other similar weapons. This is probably the same logic behind banning full-auto guns and why you can, for example, own an AK-47 or a shotgun but (in some states) can't own a modified AK-47 or a sawed-off shotgun.


The argument against sawed off shotguns was they had no military application. The was patently false as shotguns had been used extensively in WWI in trench warfare.
#14891780
Suntzu wrote:The argument against sawed off shotguns was they had no military application. The was patently false as shotguns had been used extensively in WWI in trench warfare.

Ok, that may be a more accurate description of Scalia's argument. I remember it being long and challengingly thorough as such things often were. One quibble though, a sawed off shotgun and a military shotgun might be different.
#14891792
Hong Wu wrote:Ok, that may be a more accurate description of Scalia's argument. I remember it being long and challengingly thorough as such things often were. One quibble though, a sawed off shotgun and a military shotgun might be different.


This was the Miller decision back in prohibition days, I believe. The argument was that shotguns were not military weapons thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
#14891796
blackjack21 wrote: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.


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.


What's interesting my friend is the reactionary (and indeed, it's entirely reactionary) response of the Faux-Left to the 2nd Amendment every time these incidents happen, to make calls to disarm the revolutionary potential of the American people. The American Revolution is almost dead, but ironically it is more alive in White Working Class American Patriots, then in the whole Liberal scene anywhere in the Western world.

2nd Amendment is a Right coming from God, a sure defense against the tyranny of the common criminal, and the potential defense against political and economic tyranny on a more organized scale.
#14891826
The issue with shotguns was that sawing them off makes them concealable, and far more dangerous.

Well regulated militia is still not referring to some cunts in a camp in Montana who think the government is out to get them. It is the National Guard.

Assault rifles are unnecessary, and dangerous to the population. Most mass shootings are perpetrated by them.
#14891829
Godstud wrote:The issue with shotguns was that sawing them off makes them concealable, and far more dangerous.

Well regulated militia is still not referring to some cunts in a camp in Montana who think the government is out to get them. It is the National Guard.

Assault rifles are unnecessary, and dangerous to the population. Most mass shootings are perpetrated by them.


10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
#14891830
Right, which just goes to show how stupid Americans are, when it comes to guns, because unorganized militia is almost ALL anti-government, and every person with an assault rifle is somehow a member of a militia, even if they actually aren't. :knife: Stupidity.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 42

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]