Assault rifle ban will fail without objective definitions because...

You said not one mass shooter was a woman. You were incorrect.

You even posted stats showing you were incorrect. Thank you for proving yourself incorrect along with me.

 

You win. A very tiny number of mass shooters are women. Still basically a man's way of asserting his masculinity or at best a man's attempt to pretend his life has meaning.

 

What do you think the second amendment was for? Hunting? Guess again.

 

No such confusion. Both terms refer to the same thing. And that thing does not include semi-auto guns.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms includes the right of the general populace to have arms that are effective for private self defense.

 

Precisely how was it concluded that mass shootings are a way of male individuals demonstrating and asserting their masculinity over others?

 

No the need to own pretend military weapons is the pathetic assertion of masculinity.

 

You need a bit of education. You can even start with NRA definitions and go from there.

And the second amendment says absolutly nothing about self defense.

 

Why would you be ignorant enough of the meaning of the second amendment to bring up hunting? The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia in the time when America did not have a standing army.

 

Seems you’ve conveniently cherry picked from Heller and DC to make points in previous posts, but ignore Scalia’s discussion on the relevance of the prefatory clause in the Amendment. Of course you can do what many GCAs do and declare the Heller ruling and Scalia wrong.

 

This isn't Europe where everyone is a serf who has to justify why they need to have a gun.

Americans are free people. When we acquire guns, it is because we choose to do so.

That is incorrect. I am fully educated. Assault weapon is just another term for assault rifle.

Assault rifles:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire

b) accept detachable magazines

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.

The Second Amendment protects the preexisting right to keep and bear arms.

The preexisting right to keep and bear arms includes the right of the general populace to have guns that are effective for self-defense.

Hardly ignorant. His point was that it isn't about hunting.

They could have had a standing army had they wanted one.

They made a conscious decision to have a militia instead of a standing army.

 

Curious as to how you have come up with the fact that when the Constitution was written America could have had a standing army?

And perhaps you should learn the meaning of " serf" before you make such ignorant statements about everyone in Europe being a serf. Anyone with a high school education would know better than to say something so ignorant.

And while all assault rifles can be considered as assault weapons all assault weapons are not assault rifles.

 

Precisely how was such a matter actually concluded? What was the basis utilized in reaching such a determination? Is it a relatively recent phenomenon, or has it is existed for as long as private citizens have been able to legally own military firearms, such as the Springfield, Garand, and other such models?

 

The fourth amendment says nothing about abortion either. Yet somehow the united state supreme court found it to apply to the right to get an abortion. Therefore the second amendment applies to self defense in the same manner the fourth amendment applies to abortion.

 

that's really stupid

there should be a constitutional amendment that states

No state, or federal law enforcement agency, shall have access to any firearms or firearms accessories that the state or federal government denies private citizens from keeping and bearing

 

Stupid in your opinion but of course considering the source and your inability to explain why I will exercise my option not to take your opinion seriously.

And it would be interesting if you could explain why you think law enforcement and the citizens should be armed equally.

 

Back to pretzel logic.

 

so how would you define the guns we are talking about being used in mass shootings, and most know exactly which guns we are talking about, but I want to hear how you would describe them so they would be clear in legal terms

 

agree, I feel the same about religion, yet I am banned from practicing the Peyote religion in the privacy of my home

so I agree it can go to far, even taking guns from ex-felons that have paid their debt to society goes too far imo

machine guns I think we all agree with, assault weapons seem to be where many of us disagree

 

And apparently women commit 100% of the space crime so....

 

Historically speaking civilian arms (like rifles) were more effective as weapons than basic military issue (smoothbore musket) so I'd actually prefer superior arms to the military. After all, I can spend much more on myself when I'm footing the bill than the nation can when its running on lowest common denominator margins.

You should see what Freud had to say about hoplophobia

 

It is a confirmed fact the majority of all mass shootings in the united states are committed with handguns, rather than any other type of firearm. But stories about mass shootings committed with handguns simply do not grab the headlines the same way stories about rifles do, simply because the united state supreme court has already ruled a handgun prohibition unconstitutional.

 

the unplanned ones are with hand guns, were talking about the planed ones that use what most people call assault weapons

I am just trying to find a common term we can use to describe those weapons so we are all on the same page

 

So what is being stated on the part of yourself, is that Virginia Tech was not planned, but rather a spur of the moment, impulsive decision?

Regardless of whatever term is used to describe semi-automatic only rifles with certain cosmetic features, it will ultimately not change the fact that there are those who believe it is necessary to prohibit the legal ownership of such firearms by the public, in response to the actions of known criminals, or individuals who are known to be disturbed but have been ignored by the system in place for a period of years or decades. Regardless of whatever term it utilized, it will do nothing to change the fact the implement is being scapegoated because it is simply too hard to address the responsible individuals, and why their severe problems were ignored by so many for so long.

It is far easier to blame the legal availability of an AR-15 rifle, than explain why an individual with a documented history of making felony threats of harm to others was never arrested by law enforcement for making those threats, even when said threats involved a firearm.

 

It would be reasonable to ban all weapons that can be demonstrated by a human to fire 700 rounds or more per minute, as some GCers are claiming the AR can.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-dem-claims-ar-15-can-fire-700-rounds-per-minute

 

what I am saying is the majority of planned mass shooting uses assault weapons