Scalia's Supreme Court accepted Assault Weapons Ban

No, I'm pointing out that heroin, as an illegal product, is a "lot more difficult" to buy than if it was illegal. You aren't saying that people will want magazines less if they are illegal, just that it will be a lot harder to buy if they are. Regardless of what motivates a purchase, if a buyer wants them, they will get them. Or 3D print them.

 

of course they are arms. They are just more dangerous than other arms, so you can't have them.

 

Public safety

See above

 

civilians do not and can not own RPG's. machine guns yes, if they were made before 1986. And fighter jet's, no. At least not with the radar, stealth, shooting or bombing capability of an actual fighter jet.

 

yea, and personal RPG's, Nukes and fighter jets are banned to the general public.

General welfare

 

and they have been, so there is no "if" here.

 

you really don't see the difference between concealed carry, small revolvers.............and nukes, RPG's and fighter jets? Lol

This is why us normal gun owners try to distance ourselves from the batshit crazy nuts who give all gun owners a bad name.

 

...and again we see you have no truck with reality. When the '94 AWB was enacted, it promptly became a felony to possess any full capacity mags marked "Military/LE Only."

Law enforcement nation wide promptly started finding that the bad guys had a ready supply of such mags. If they were willing to murder someone, they certainly didn't care about a felony charge for carrying a 15-rd. mag.

Again, the passage of a law that targets the rights of the law-abiding affects the criminal not one whit.

 

They are not arms, they are ordnance.

 

Incorrect. In the Heller ruling, the united state supreme court stated, in absolute terms, that not only was the second amendment not subject to judicial interest balancing against vague concepts such as "public safety" they also specified that it could not be made subject to such interest balancing tests. They outright rejected such a concept, and have reiterated such twice now.

Try again in attempting to provide an answer to the questions provided.

 

After reading this thread it is obvious that one special Prog does not know the difference between Arms and Ordnance in regards to the 2A.

 

Which is still arms.

 

they did no such thing. They clearly pointed out that the second amendment is not unlimited, and that traditional restrictions and regulations are perfectly constitutional.

 

I mentioned your line of reasoning.
The bottom line is trying to have gun control like you see in New York City, at a point where even pepper spray was illegal.

 

ok, I wasn't getting what you were trying to say. I'm still not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

the point is, the government is constitutionally justified in restricting rights, if they can demonstrate a legitimate interest is served, by that restriction. Not letting civilians own nukes, RPG's and fighter jets falls into that category.

 

Factually incorrect. Arms and ordnance are in no way the same thing. They are not substitution goods. They are wholly different and unique from one another.

 

Except for the simple fact that they did. Observe the following.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would notapply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Which has no relevance whatsoever to what was stated by yourself, or what was stated by the united state supreme court. And what was stated by the united state supreme court, is that the second amendment is not subject to judicial interest-balancing against the vague, poorly defined concept of "public safety" whatever that may amount to.

 

how come Conservatives fail to admit the significance of this?

 

ordinance is not "arms", according to the law

 

Your opinion lacks verifiable citations and quotes.

 

who are you, the PF police?

 

He got elected. Didn't you know?

 

I hear Russia released some private emails of his to Wikileaks, to tip the election in his favor.

 

If you are going to make claims, then post your verifiable citations and quotes and peer reviewed evidence as has always been required of academia otherwise such is dismissed as unsubstantiated and unfounded.

 

LOL!!!!!

oh you guys...

this is not academia.

this is an anonymous private internet forum, where there are no standards of evidence except within opening posts of a thread.

I am fully within the rules and regulations of this forum, if you disagree feel free to report my post to the Moderation Team.

let me know how that works out for ya.