Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

What's the difference between AR-15 and a semi auto 22LR?

 

the amount of mass shootings I suppose, I am not a gun owner, collector or anything like that, I just know ar-15 kill a large number of people fast and easy.. like machine guns

 

Your ignorance is obvious.

 

That's an absurd question but one often asked by gun controllers - and I hadn't thought you to be one but now I have to wonder. No one has suggested that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to use those arms to murder someone. No one has suggested that even brandishing is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Keeping and bearing is separate from what you do with a gun once you have it. As someone normally thought to be pro gun, you should have known to maintain this separation without me reminding you.

 

Firearms such as the AR-15, are not in any way comparable to fully-automatic firearms. It does not matter how fast an individual may be capable of discharging a semi-automatic firearm such as the AR-15, as it is still not the same thing.

 

OK, good.
So, the right to use a gun does not involve the right to commit a crime with a gun.
Why?

 

They both look scary; hoplophobes can't help themselves.

 

Oh, bull crap. Nuclear weapons are not arms in the meaning of the 18th century. They're weapons of mass destruction and not applicable at all to any function for which the right to keep and bear arms exists or is protected by the 2nd Amendment. That people are not allowed to own weapons capable of destroying the planet does not, in any way, justify blocking 100 round magazines or fully automatic rifles or ugly, black, semi-automatic rifles.

But your argument does prove one thing, since you're making the argument, and not me. It reminds me of the childhood discussion. Will you blow me for a billion dollars? If you say yes, then the response is now that we know what you are, all that's left is to agree on price.

Equally, if you believe the government can exercise power (not authority) not granted in the Constitution, that they can violate the very words of the Constitution to protect lives from gun violence (or Wuhan Flu) then you believe that the government can do anything they want, and are not bound at all by the Constitution. All that's left is to negotiate what rights they take - such as free speech, freedom of religion, trial without a jury, taking property without compensation, or anything else they want.

If the government can do what they want, regardless of the Constitution, then why do we even need Appeals or the Supreme Courts?

 

And thus, not all weapons are considered "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.
Why?

 

Sure they are similar; they're both protected by the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution forbids limits on both of them.

 

Well, except for limits like a prohibition against using them to commit murder.
Right?

 

That's right. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to own a car. It doesn't protect your right to own poisons. It doesn't protect your right to own anti-freeze. I'm disappointed that so many here who pretend to support the 2nd Amendment don't even support the Constitution, let alone the 2nd Amendment.

What part of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand? It doesn't mention "except reasonable restrictions or regulations".

To regulate any arms requires an amendment to the Constitution - which would not eliminate the right; it would only authorize the government to infringe on the right.

 

Yes, I suppose that's another similarity but that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. There's also a prohibition against using anti-freeze to commit murder, alcohol to commit murder, your hands to commit murder.

 

You didn't answer the questions.
-Why- does "arms", as the term is used in the 2nd not extend to all weapons?
-Why- does the 2nd not protect the use of a firearm in the commission of a murder?

 

How about this:

So as long as there's a sunset to allow them to be tried before made permanent, you're ok with gun laws to see if they work. And if they "work", however that is defined, they're OK.

You support gun control. It's not OK; it's wrong. But I get it. A lot of people support gun control. Most are more honest about it, though. But you're not alone. We know them pretty quickly on gun forums usually when, among their very first posts, there will be one that says something like, "I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and own several guns, but..."

What that almost (perhaps always) always means is, "I own a couple hunting rifles but I think you should not be allowed to own your ugly, black, rifles; they scare me."

 

I didn't answer them because, yes they do exist, the questions are stupid questions.

Are you suggesting that anyone believes the 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a toaster or poison or a car? They're all weapons but they're not arms.

The second question is so stupid I am not even going to attempt to explain it to you. If you don't see the difference between "keep and bear" and "use" then I just can't help you.

The saddest thing is, until the last couple days, I counted you as a pro-gun person. If you're an example of pro-gun then the fight is nearly lost.

 

Ever hear of the Sheriff of Notingham? Sheriffs have existed since the dark ages: The History of the Sheriff

More local than the sheriff, towns have appointed watchmen and constables since before the colonies and, in America, from the formation of the colonies.

You must support the concept of a living Constitution, one whose meaning changes with the time or perspective; 300 million constitutions. By the way, the abbreviation for million is MM, as in a thousand thousands; M is thousand.

Lines in the sand are not legal lines, are they; they're simply personal opinions. The Constitution, on the other hand, is the supreme legal definition and it says (and you know this) "shall not be infringed." It doesn't say anything about limits, restrictions, sensible, nonsensible, or anything else. You don't like it then change the Constitution.

Your magazine limit surrenders the life of 10 people to any mass shooter before the shooter could be jumped to prevent reloading - an act that almost never happens in mass shootings anyway; virtually all mass shooters that reload are not challenged during the act. Unarmed, defenseless, people cowering in fear don't generally have even the opportunity to jump up and attack an armed attacker in the less than 2 seconds it takes to change a magazine.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter fired 49 rounds and held the victims at bay for over 4 hours. No one attacked the armed shooter. This is the typical story.

A better solution is that the people be armed and defend themselves from a distance. What happens when the shooter changes his magazine with a round still in the chamber and more in the magazine? There's no time during which he is unable to fire a round. If you charge and he fires the last round after dropping the old magazine now there's about 1/4 to 1/2 second before the new magazine is in place and the first to attack him is now dead, too.

Rather than surrender 7 or 10 or 20 or 30 lives waiting for a reload, an armed population can shoot back from the first shot... and have enough rounds in their own weapons to take out the bad guy or have the best chance of taking him out.

 

"Why" the limitations exist is not a stupid question - and if you understand the right to keep and bear arms like you think you do, you can answer them, sine difficultate

So:
-Why- does "arms", as the term is used in the 2nd not extend to all weapons?
-Why- does the 2nd not protect the use of a firearm in the commission of a murder?

Well?

 

I listed one stipulation. There, of course, are others that depend on the situation. Anyone honestly considering my comment or able to exist in a non black and white reality would allow for that possibly. You seem to be looking for reasons to take what I say and add the worst case context for everything I leave out. Im not looking to write treatices every time I have an opinion just to keep folks like you from assuming the worst. You are exhausting.

 

Thanks for your concession. You support restrictions. Oh, sure, you're willing to trade tit for tat but you support restrictions.

For instance, here's a case where you support mandatory background checks and claim that for gun owners to show that they are open to reasonable regulation (whatever the hell that is) is a positive bonus.

 

That you cannot use your gun to commit murder is not a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms... The question is stupid.

Arms had then, and has now, specific meanings that doesn't include everything that can be used as a weapon... The question is stupid.

 

I haven't taken anything you said out of context. You support gun control. You may not support an all out ban, and you may love the guns you have, but you don't support the 2nd Amendment. It's a fact. You've said as much in your own words. If an infringement is first tested in a trial period and shown to "work", whatever that means, then you're OK with it. You said so.

 

The Federal Government actually did fund weapons for the poor in the early days of our nation. It's important for everyone in the militia to have guns. Those who can afford them should by their own. Those who cannot still require them to fulfill their militia duties and the Federal Government provided many such guns in the late 18th and early 19th century.

 

Any semi auto weapon would be able to do that.
I don't know if AR-15 is easier to use in terms of accuracy. But the trigger needs to be pulled each and every round just like all other semi auto rifles.
It is designed to look like a soldiers rifle, so I suppose there's some ease of use in terms of accuracy in that type design. But that is just a guess of mine.

 

And there is your very own personal limitation.
It has to have the meaning of the 18th century. Even though semi auto rifles didn't exist then.
Show exactly where in any official 2A documents, the weapons must be limited to the 18th century. Else it's you very own limitation.

It surely does justify the argument of blocking 100 round magazines. For that is a tool for mass destruction. Not as massive as a bomb, but massive none the less.
It's all subjective. And you've given your very own personal subjective view point. 18th century. Where were the 100 round mags in 18th century?

How about a claymore mine?
According to you and your 18th century weapon, single shot rifles is all Americans can own.