After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

And a thousand dollar per day fine for those who dont hand in or remove their guns. Land of the free? Not

The "assault weapons" ban is dispicable

 

But its just a detriment to otherwise law abiding citizens who own such guns than a deterrent to mass shooters.

 

Bahhhhhd decision making?

 

Okay, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but it is an assault weapon? Sure. I guess.

First of all, long range is not an issue concerning mass shooting scenarios.
Second of all, Adam Lanza may have fired 150 rounds in five minutes, but his assault "weapon" didn't increase his efficiency since he killed 26.

And here is where I'm going to point out how blind you are to your own bias. Earlier you were insisting that the pistol grip was necessary in order to stabilize the gun--specifically to control "barrel rise." But now, in order to demonize the AR-15 according to your need in this discussion, you now claim that it has little recoil and that anyone can shoot them. Do you understand what I've just said to you?

Sometimes when people obsess on something, they unwittingly contradict themselves in their quest to paint a picture conducive to their emotion-driven opinion.

Listen to the author of an article from the New York Times:

"But the fact is that the volume of fire produced by Lanza’s semi-automatic arsenal was substantively the same as the fully automatic “gangster guns” effectively outlawed by Congress in 1934 and again in 1968."

https://nypost.com/2012/12/18/adam-lanzas-weapons/

Isn't that outrageous? First he talks about the volume of fire produced by Lanza's semiautomatic "arsenal" when in fact he used only a rifle. Then he equates the rate of fire of a semiautomatic with an automatic. And by the way, that same author admitted that the number of shots fired by Lanza is not clear. So, just for my edification, where did you hear that Lanza had fired 150 rounds in five minutes?

 

Sorry, but even if the investigation uncovered Cruz' history, there would be no evidence of a crime. The FBI doesn't have roving authority to arrest disturbed or dangerous people or confiscate their property. The FBI is in charge of enforcing specific federal statutes. Which of those do you think he violated? Federal law forbids people who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital and people found to be a danger to themselves or others from having guns. That of course would require commitment proceedings. As I mentioned, the federal terrorism statute requires very specific intent. Post# 2340. Making a reasonable inference that he actually intended to shoot up his school, and that his action might be imminent isn't enough. Despite repeated warnings to schools and police that he was a violent threat, 19-year-old Cruz was able to legally purchase an AR-15, one of seven guns he owned. Florida ranks 50th on state spending for mental health, but 3rd in gun ownership. increasing number of states that allow law enforcement officers or, in some cases, family members or others to petition a court to temporarily take guns from people who pose a danger to themselves or others.There was no Florida law authorizing authorities to take away guns under these circumstances. The Broward County sheriff asked lawmakers in Washington and Tallahassee to pass a law allowing officers to detain people for a mental health evaluation on the basis of social media posts or “graphic threats.” "Red Flag" laws, or extreme commitment proceedings in some states allow family members or others to petition a court to temporarily take guns from people who pose a danger to themselves or others.This seems to be a promising step. School officials recommended that Cruz be committed, but never acted on it. Florida is considering such a law.

 

Wow. Even though you know that the FBI has admitted that they didn't investigate when they clearly should have, you deny the reason and value of such an investigation. Whether you know it or not, you're stating that the FBI believes that it should have investigated even though it also believes that nothing could come from such an investigation. How much sense does that make?

 

The grammar of the sentence is not very important. What is important is what was intended.

You can see better what was intended by looking at the text of what was proposed by the Virginia ratifying convention:

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Rights: Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution

I've no objection to having the government respect the entire Second Amendment and bring back the militia.

Of course, militiamen will have the right to buy Stinger missiles and keep them in their homes.

And non-militiamen will still have the right to have guns suitable for self defense.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment does not define or restrict the scope of the right at all. It merely takes the preexisting right to keep and bear arms and says that it shall not be infringed.

The National Guard is not the militia as far as the Constitution is concerned.

The militia in the Constitution is a separate body from the standing army, and its role on a federal level is limited to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law.

The National Guard is part of the standing army, and as such participates in overseas invasions of foreign nations.

State governments pick the officers of the militia. I'm not sure how National Guard officers are picked, but I've never heard of state governments choosing them.

And militiamen have an express right to buy their own military weapons and take them home with them. Guardsmen always leave their military weapons under the control of the government.

 

No it doesn't.

You can only restrict a right if that restriction serves an important government interest.

A general ban on semi-auto and lever-action rifles that take detachable magazines does not serve any government interest.

Not to mention, if you try to ban such rifles, the hunters will realize that claims that the gun control movement isn't going after their hunting weapons are untrue.

 

That is little different from any other varmint rifle.

That is due to large detachable magazines, and has nothing to do with it being an assault weapon.

So can any other weapon that accepts detachable magazines.

Same with any other low-powered weapon.

So can any other gun.

These are not a problem in any way.

That isn't very relevant. What matters is the fact that there is no important government interest served in banning them.

 

Violating people's civil rights for fun is a bad thing.

 

Nope. The Texas church shooting back in November.

Which by the way was stopped by a good guy with an AR15

 

So they have two options I guess. Hide the guns or start shooting their local police and congress man. This is the day they have always talked about. Seriously if more bans like this happen I think domestic terrorism is possible. I assume you will not be able to buy ammo for the guns in the town but there is still the internet. Overall probably will not be effective until other loopholes are changed. It is state's rights though. The big govement says something is true those who live in the community have the right to say no. Right in line with right wing thinking.

 

Why would you assume you cant buy the ammo? You use the word assume a lot.

 

Oh, okay, then I say no.

 

The Constitution doesnt guarantee the right to high capacity weapons.

 

You mean high capacity magazines?

 

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with a pointless ban on pistol grips, flash suppressors, and barrel shrouds.

 

Sure

My point is, the Constitution doesnt guarantee the right to any specific weapon. A line must be drawn somewhere. "Arms" is a vague term and makes the 2nd amendment subject to interpretation to determine where the line should be drawn. Banning a specific type of weapon that poses a public threat due to the mass casualties they can cause isn't unconstitutional. We already accept that bombs are banned for the same reason. There is plenty of established legal precedent supporting a ban on certain types of guns