Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

Here's the false equivalency part: only 32 K-12 kids in 54 years in over 23 million school-days have been killed in a mass shooting with an AR-15. Over 60,000 have died in car accidents.

Why are we focused on banning AR-15s to save kids again?

 

Your false equivalency is meaningless, Rucker61.

Read Nonnie below, carefully, if you don't understand.

 

Probably because 99.9% people killed by vehicles are due to '''accidents". The kids shot in school are due to 99.9% on "purpose".

Can you see the two different words and do you have a dictionary?

Can you see why laws are passed on vehicle and road safety (air bags, seat belts, speed limits, speed bumps etc..) as opposed to gun mayhem.

Or are you blind?

 

Can you count? If the numbers don't mean anything to you, it's not about lives, it's about guns.

 

The number is irrelevant. Some activities incur more deaths than others. There are more car journeys a day than guns being drawn.

What's important is that laws are brought in in all areas of life to minimize casualties, hence the legislation on vehicles.

But America suffers from little if any legislation on guns, hence the high number of massacres etc.. so legislation is required to reduce deaths. And as more happen, more legislation is required. If everyone was sensible, no legislation would be required but life doesn't work that way.

I hope that's in plain English for you.

 

Yes, it's plain that you aren't concerned with the number of dead, just the guns. America suffers from a high level of accidental automobile deaths, but you gloss right over that.

It's not about the number of times a gun is drawn. It's about the opportunity for misuse. The AR-15 was first sold to civilians in 1964, and we're up to about 10 million of them now. Over 54 years that's a rough average of 5 million per year. Heck, say 2 million on average over that period. We have 130,000 K-12 schools, say that's a average of 100,000 per year since 1954. Schools are open 180 days per year. That's 54 years x 2 million guns x 100,000 schools x 180 days of opportunity for an AR-15 to be used in a school shooting. If the math works, that's 1,944,000,000,000,000 gun-schools-days of opportunity since the AR-15 was first sold to civilians. We've had a K-12 school shooting with an AR-15 twice over those 1,944,000,000,000,000 opportunities for misuse, with fewer dead than are murdered with water every year.

Yeah, that's a huge problem.

 

Wrong.

Legislation on vehicles needs tightened even more. I think cars should have GPS speed limiters fitted so you can't exceed the speed limit anywhere. Every 5 years, you should sit a driving test.

Guns need controlled. Assault rifles and hand guns banned. Meanigful fines and jail sentences for still possessing banned guns. Thorough background checks and licensing on gun owners, yearly, for approved firearms.

If problems persist, further laws required.

 

Can we ban hate speech, too, and political parties that are mean to people? You're simply an authoritarian, with no respect for the Constitution or people's rights.

 

What would such do to prevent incidents of vehicular homicide from occurring?

Legally such cannot be done. The united state supreme court had ruled such to be unconstitutional under any standard of scrutiny that may be applied.

Why is such not already being applied with regard to prohibited individuals? They cannot legally purchase or possess firearms, and yet they are not facing prison sentences for such.

How would such do anything to prevent murders from being carried out?

To what extent? How many finite resources are devoted in the name of trying to prevent firearm-related crimes from being committed, before it is concluded that it is simply not a cost effective approach to attempt?

 

No, the constitution just needs implemented, the people and guns need to be well regulated.

 

If you're unsure of the results, how it works etc.. take a trip to Australia and the UK to find out.

 

No, the Constitution needs nothing, it guarantees our civil rights and the right to keep and bear Arms.

 

"Well regulated" modifies "militia", not "people" or "arms". Congress is fully empowered to "organize, arm and discipline" the militia.

What we need first is to actually enforce the laws we have in place now.

 

Russia has laws as strict as those countries. How is gun control working out there?

 

Yes I agree, but it also says well regulated. Why do Americans fail to mention that part?

 

Ask them?

 

Again: "Well regulated" modifies "militia", not "people" or "arms". Congress is fully empowered to "organize, arm and discipline" the militia. They've done so repeatedly in our history through the various Militia Acts.

 

Or just look at the published data. Very strict gun control, higher homicide rates than the US.

 

No it doesn't. Let's look at the dictionary for regulate and Militia -



So we can see what regulate means and when it comes to Militia, we can see that in the US, it's all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

So Militia is not Congress or the police etc.. but civilians.

So my question is, why isn't the 2nd amendment FULLY implemented in the USA? Why do pro gun owners fail to mention and comply with ''well regulated".

I assumed Americans new what those words meant, do you not have dictionaries?

 

I don't presume that foreigners know anything about the Constitution, and that's a safe presumption here.

The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's not arguable that "well-regulated" doesn't modify "militia".

How do we regulate the militia, and what is "well-regulated"? For that, let's turn to the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16:
"[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Congress is empowered to regulate the Militia, and by definition, anything Congress creates as law regarding the militia is "well-regulated". It may not be as well-regulated as some might want, but it's entirely at Congress' discretion. Congress has passed laws five times in our history to regulate the Militia: twice in 1792, once in 1794, again in 1863 and for the last time in 1930. The current Miltia Act is codified in 10 USC 311 (USC is US Code, aka federal law"

§311 . 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.

By US law, the "well-regulated militia" consists of the organized militia and the unorganized militia, the latter of which is defined as "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". That Congress doesn't require any further regulations for the militia is entirely up to Congress.

 

... or want to.
They choose to be ignorant.

 

We do, but then we understand what the Founders meant by "well regulated" and you clearly don't.

When one speaks about "regulation" in the martial context, it does NOT mean government controlled. A rifle that shoots to the point of aim is said to have sights that are "properly regulated." The term was widespread in the 1700's, and "well regulated" meant properly equipped and functioning as expected.

During the War of 1812, after two different major battles where the brunt of the fighting was borne by militia instead of regular Army forces, and the militia were victorious, dispatches from the field praised the "fine regulation" of the militia; which is praise for their discipline, courage under fire, and esprit d'corps.

The militia was always meant to be drawn from the people, who needed to be "well regulated" (i.e. properly armed and equipped) to protect "the Security of a Free State" and so the Constitution proclaimed that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That anti-gunners still refuse to acknowledge that historical fact is telling regarding their motivations.

 

So if you wish to protect the free state, why are citizens running about shooting one another? Not regulated is it?

 

I am well-armed and well-trained; ergo I am well regulated.

"Citizens" aren't "running about shooting one another." That's happening in urban areas, generally where gun laws are strictest.

Where I live, a relatively rural area, pretty much everybody is armed at one level or other. Neighbors look out for each other, and crime is essentially nonexistent. The last person to get shot was a guy driving through who made the mistake to break into a house with the intention of stealing some stuff he thought he could pawn later. He took two rounds from the homeowner and survived to be prosecuted.

The free state was well protected that day!

 

It's almost as if they go out of their way to be wrong.