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

Sorry posted the wrong link. And the discussion is about the meaning of “ well regulated militia”

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

 

Glad you figured it out. They are assault weapons not assault rifles.

 

And the phrase "assault weapon" is devoid of legitimate meaning, since the definition is based entirely on cosmetic features that do not, in any way, affect the functionality of a firearm. Produce an AR-15 without the flash suppressor, bayonet lug, or adjustable stock, and it is still functionally an AR-15, even if it would no longer meet the definition of being classified as a so-called "assault weapon."

So long as the technology of semi-automatic firearms remains legal for private ownership, prohibitions on so-called "assault weapons" will remain meaningless since the definition is created by those who have no understanding of firearms. And there is simply no legal standard under which semi-automatic firearms can be declared illegal and prohibited for private ownership.

 

So what do you propose to reduce the mass slaughter of innocents that seems to increasingly be caused by assault weapons.

 

Implement policies that prevent the news media from providing excessive detail of the perpetrator. In each and every mass shooting incident in the united states, the news media is providing constant, wall-to-wall coverage of every minute detail of the personal lives of the guilty party, constantly repeating their name and posting their photo, giving them a level of infamy and recognition that they could not have achieved otherwise. It serves no purpose other than inspiring copycats while the names of the dead are left to be forgotten by the public, while being exploited by politicians seeking to push a political narrative.

If one wishes to see mass shootings reduced, change how the incidents are reported. Report that the incident occurred, how many died and how many were merely wounded, but under no circumstances provide any details relating to the perpetrator. No mention of race, age, gender, name, or any other details relating to the guilty party. Treat them as if they simply do not exist, so they will be forgotten about just as they always have been. When no more fame comes, those seeking attention will no longer have a motivation to engage in such acts.

 

I contend that they mean exactly the same thing. And therefore neither term applies to a semi-auto-only weapon.

 

Not exactly. Regulations are allowed if they can pass muster with strict scrutiny.

Regulations that prevent a dangerous person from having a gun would almost certainly pass muster.

Whether a mental health problem makes someone a dangerous person would depend on the details of the mental health problem.

Same thing. And neither term applies to semi-auto-only weapons.

No innocents are being slaughtered with assault weapons. Assault weapons have been tightly regulated ever since 1934.

 

How about demanding law enforcement do their job, too many times they have used the excuse "we cannot do anything until the shooter does something."

The Parkland shooter was known to the FBI and the Broward Sheriff to be a threat yet they did nothing to intervene, the shooter Cruz posted on social media he planned on being the best mass shooter of all time and that was ignored, the FBI was contacted by his family warning them he was going to commit a shooting and the Sheriff Department was at his home a dozen times three of which where calls of him threatening people with the same rifle he used to commit his murder spree.

 

Thanks for the reply. I am in agreement. Except I’ll have to take your word on call of duty. Never played. However, I’ve seen black bear taken cleanly with a .30-.30. Even though I’ve put down countless 1500-1600 lb cattle with the .223/5.56 out of AR’s I would never attempt black bear with the round.

I guess my question was more rhetorical and aimed at banners who say “assault” weapons are too powerful and dangerous to have in society in one breath. Then they turn around and say ARs are worthless in defense against tyrannical governments. It seems to me an intellectually honest person would have to pick one position to operate from. Then again, both positions are fallacious on at least one level, so I guess intellectual honesty is out the window anyway. It’s just humorous to see people want things both ways without realizing they are defeating their own arguments.

 

Well worded and quite true.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

It did, actually. Nice try though.

 

So a well regulated militia means a militia in working order. If the fathers had meant well regulated guns they would have said guns not militia.

 

Blaming law enforcement is an easy escape from responsibility since they can only enforce existing laws. Which law do you think would have allowed law enforcement to put the Parkland shooter in jail, or confiscate his weapons?

 

So your solution is to eliminate the freedom of the press? That would be a whole lot more dangerous to our Democracy than limiting the right to bear arms.

And by the way I agree it would be a good step if all media did so voluntarily but I am not going to hold my breath. .

 

You are confusing assault weapons with assault rifles.

 

The fact that he not once, but three times, committed crimes with his rifle prior to Parkland, had he been arrested for any of those offences they (BSO) could have confiscated that firearm, furthermore had the FBI done a follow up on the tips they received, they would have discovered Cruz committed a federal offence by lying on his 4473, which would have allowed them arrest him and if convicted be sent to federal prison for 5 years.

 

They did need to use the word guns, instead they used the broader term arms, which includes firearms, but does not restrict the Second to just guns as they existed at the time, by doing to arms such as the electric rifle (CEW's) are also protected by the Second.

 

Guess you like many have never actually read the Second amendment. For your education here it is:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Please let us all know where it says anything about well regulated arms.

 

It doesn't need to.

 

The laws that pertain to making criminal threats, as he was accused of doing numerous times.

 

Good so you now agree that the second amendment supports the right to bear arms only in order to have a well regulated militia.

 

When their actions encourage more violence? Indeed so.

Pray tell how so? Both proposals involve restrictions on the legal exercising of a constitutional right as punishment for the actions of criminal individuals. What difference does such make if it is the first amendment rather than the second amendment? What is the legitimate difference between the two amendments that makes one more valuable than the other?

Then it may ultimately be necessary to force them to do such for the good of the nation, and the people at large who are exploited in the name of ratings.

 

You are totally incorrect.

 

Incorrect:
Snochia Moseley-2018
Tashfeen Malik-2015
Jennifer San Marco-2006

There’s more, but all I needed was ONE and you were proven wrong.

 

ccording to a recent FBI study, men carried out 94 percent of mass shootings between 2000 and 2013.