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

Indeed. And the fact is you're mostly busy trying to discredit convo partners with an opposite stance (which is improving gun control, not grabbing your guns... although: you might lose yours if you're anything like you make yourself sound on here and gun control actually gets improved lol), rather than trying to come up with constructive posts regarding the topic.

 

That is incorrect. The fact that there is no justification for banning them means that the Constitution does protect our right to have them.

 

Not to mention the .223 caliber which most AR15s are chambered in isnt even legal to hunt deer in most stes because its ineffective killing ability.

 

You're pretending that you didn't hear me say that the Las Vegas shooting was the exception and not the rule. He used 22 rifles with bump-stocks and 100-round magazines. I told you that you were milking that incident for everything you can get out of it. The fact is that in all the other mass shootings, range was not an issue.

Concerning Adam Lanza, you said that he fired off 150 rounds in five minutes. I asked you to provide a source for that claim. I thought I was clear on that. The issue with the number killed had to do with your claim that the AR15 makes killing more efficient.

About recoil, you said that the pistol grip was necessary to stabilize the gun because of barrel rise. Then, in order to demonize the gun, you claimed that what makes it dangerous is that it has little recoil and that anyone can shoot it. I know you understood me when I first said it. But since you're on the hook, tell me how much the barrel rises after a shot without a pistol grip, and how that would reduce the number of casualties in a mass shooting scenario. Since you're an advocate of banning pistol grips, you're going to have to show how much more dangerous a rifle is when it has one.

 

Cant shoot deer with .223 but ooooh its so deadly and its way faster and farther than a glock oooooh

 

Ok. Now back on topic.

If the .223 is so terribly terrifying and deadly, why is it not a legal weapon to kill deer in so many states?

 

I mean ya know the gun grabbers trump it up as if its dramatically devastating, but its not even legal to kill deer with in a lot of states.

Oooh it can pierce a military helmet at 500 yards ooooh it can go through a guy then go through a wall and kill a guy on the other side oooooooh

Bwahahaha

 

Does this mean then that you're willing to accept restrictions on large magazines? And how would that be done effectively?

Not every right. Only "fundamental" ones" "Narrowly tailored" is only applicable to fundamental rights, i.e., those subject to strict scrutiny.

Thank you. These circuits are using intermediate scrutiny. But the fascinating thing is that even using that, the court held en banc that Maryland’s ban on military-style semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines was constitutional and not a violation of the Second Amendment (Kolbe v. Hogan ). The court held that under intermediate scrutiny , Maryland “has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (law) and Maryland’s interest in protecting public safety.” That would seem to be at odds with your line of argument.

 

Well, it means that such restrictions (within reason) would pass muster with the Second Amendment.

I wouldn't like such restrictions, but I do understand the point of them.

I suspect that rural voters will prevent restrictions on ammo capacity from being passed. People like their large magazines. However, this would be a policy debate and not a Constitutional debate.

Probably the most effective way would be to require guns and magazines that hold over ten rounds (and rifle magazines over five rounds) to be registered under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as they come.

However even with intermediate scrutiny there is a requirement to consider less intrusive alternatives. The requirement isn't as stern as strict scrutiny, which requires that they only use the least possible intrusion of all. But they still have to consider less intrusive alternatives.

As I said, their rulings tend to disregard reality.

In a way I understand. Sweeping changes really need to be done by the Supreme Court. I don't blame the lower courts for not sticking their necks out.

I'm hopeful that when Trump replaces a few liberal justices on the Supreme Court in coming years we will begin to see Supreme Court rulings in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment.

 

In other words, you put forward an alternative which, from a practical standpoint, is unlikely to be effective.

In your opinion, but not the courts'. Otherwise, they'd all be applying strict scrutiny.

Which so far haven't been articulated.

i.e., your views are much wiser than those of the judges. You have the right answers.

That's another reason why we need to get rid of him ASAP!

 

It would be effective if passed. Political opposition to the measure is just strong enough to prevent it from passing.

A proposal to ban all semi-auto and lever-action rifles that accept detachable magazines would inspire even greater opposition and be even less likely to pass.

There are a number of Alaskans who certainly won't appreciate any attempts to ban their semi-auto .338 Mag bear rifles.

At the moment the courts are not enforcing the Second Amendment. When they do start enforcing it, they may well apply strict scrutiny.

Restrictions on magazine capacity (within reason) is a less intrusive measure than restricting all semi-auto and lever action rifles that accept detachable magazines.

That there is no justification for banning pistol grips is a fact. It isn't so much a matter of my wisdom as it is a matter of reality.

No. Having the courts protect our rights is a good thing. We want our civil rights to be protected.

Not to mention, if we could finally be confident that the government will always be prevented from violating our rights, we could accept some gun control measures that we currently prevent from passing, like universal background checks.

 

But semi automatic weapons includes most hand guns.

 

Its still pretty arbitrary. Not much of a conclusion. Va tech shooting killed 32 with hand guns.

 

This is where you made your conclusion thats not a conclusion