SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment

[slothman]

1) so. cars are way more dangerous. so is water
2) there is no real need for most of what you have
3) ?
4) Profit

Did you get the "profit" from Slashdot or from South Park?

First post in several years.
Now I can get the "haven't posted in a while" title to go away.

 

[Ecofarm]

Did you get the "profit" from Slashdot or from South Park?

First post in several years.
Now I can get the "haven't posted in a while" title to go away.

South Park. I use it often, not always making sense.

 

[History_Buff]

Even though I think you are joking, I'll play along.

1) so. cars are way more dangerous. so is water
2) there is no real need for most of what you have
3) ?
4) Profit

(non-automatic means that the bolt moves forward once [firing a single round] when you pull the trigger)

To be fair, with a machinegun one could kill 100 people in ~10 seconds. You can't really do that with a couple semi-autos; however, it is child's-play to shave a bolt causing uncontrolled (short of removing magazine) autofire on 1 trigger pull. And then there are bombs... So... A machinegun isn't much of an additional risk. Carrying one and a decent amount of ammo very far would be pretty absurd. In urban warfare/assault on innocents I think mobility precludes the use of such a thing unless it is a squad served weapon. It's best (and alone, only possible) as a defensive weapon, so why not legalize it?

I meant it quite seriously. About cars, yes, they are more dangerous. Vastly so. But as many people (particularly Americans) rush to point out in many thread, they are essential given the way North American cities are built. Water I'll give you though. I'm still looking for my DHMO ban.


Even if it's easy to turn a semi-auto into a full auto, I personally didn't know such a thing was possible, nor would I know how (although I'm sure the internet could teach me I suppose). But just because they are easy to make from other things, doesn't mean they should be sold as a package. Seems pretty easy to make a bomb out of farming supplies, or crystal meth from everyday pharmaceuticals, but you don't see (legal) sales of the finished product.

And you suggest using a full auto as a defensive weapon, but a defense against what? I couldn't reasonably see you using one to defend your house. If it's about all out military resistance, I suppose my problem goes much deeper than the specific gun bans.

And I fail to see how the existance of more dangerous weapons such as bombs would make it sensible to allow the private sale of machine guns.

They want them.

That's all that is necessary.

Glad to see someone gets it.

I want lots of Cocaine. Ergo, I should be able to have as much Cocaine as I want.

I want to have lots of money. Please legalize the robbing of banks.

Doesn't work like that, and you know it.

 

[IglooDame]

I want lots of Cocaine. Ergo, I should be able to have as much Cocaine as I want.

Agreed, given that it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I want to have lots of money. Please legalize the robbing of banks.

Oops, sorry, no.

How about "you're allowed to own a machine gun, but you're not allowed to threaten anyone with it or attempt to murder someone with it"?

And just for the record, machine guns are already legal to own in many US states. But, different states also have different definitions of machine guns (and "assault weapons", for that matter).

 

[JollyRoger]

The Supreme Court did not release an opinion today in Heller. It is the only case remaining from the March argument calendar and Scalia is the the only Justice not to write a majority opinion for that month. So the guess is that Scalia is writing the majority opinion, so we will likely get to see how much of a strict constructionist he is (which based on on his Boumediene dissent, not much of one).

My guess is that he construes the 2nd as an individual right, strikes down most, if not all of the DC gun ban, but leaves open many other questions. The states and feds will be able to infringe in much the same way they ae currently doing. Only extreme bans (or extreme components of bans) like DC's would be in danger, but not infringements such as licensing laws and ex-felons-can't-possess prohibitions.

Since it is the last opinion released from the March sitting, my guess is that Scalia (if he is writing the majority opinion) has a plurality and not a majority. There may be a concurrence or two that will make the ultimate holding of the Court more narrow than whatever the primary opinion drafter writes.

Next opinion day is Wednesday, with another opinion day likely on Thursday.

 

[History_Buff]

How about "you're allowed to own a machine gun, but you're not allowed to threaten anyone with it or attempt to murder someone with it"?

Even that would be more acceptable. The more I throw myself into these gun debates, the more I seem to realize that the problem isn't so much that you all think owning a gun is a god-given right, but that people actually think it's ok to shoot someone, often for something as trivial as trespassing.

Like Jimmy Smits said on the West Wing (about Abortions), guns should be safe, legal, and rarely ever used.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Even that would be more acceptable. The more I throw myself into these gun debates, the more I seem to realize that the problem isn't so much that you all think owning a gun is a god-given right, but that people actually think it's ok to shoot someone, often for something as trivial as trespassing.

That its ok to shoot or people for trespassing is not a widespread opinion among the gun community. Nor is it legal anywhere the US.

There is only one state in the US that has a law remotely simular to that and that state is Texas where it is legal to use deadly force to protect certain types of property and this law is VERY controversial even among the US gun communitty.

Machineguns:

Yes I personally think you should be able to have as much cocaine as you want.

Robbing a bank? Not the same thing. You are robbing people of their money with violence and force.

And as Bill said people own things because they WANT them. Not because they NEED them. This is true for just about anything.

 

[IglooDame]

Even that would be more acceptable. The more I throw myself into these gun debates, the more I seem to realize that the problem isn't so much that you all think owning a gun is a god-given right, but that people actually think it's ok to shoot someone, often for something as trivial as trespassing.

Like Jimmy Smits said on the West Wing (about Abortions), guns should be safe, legal, and rarely ever used.

Perhaps if you stay in these gun debates a little longer, you'll figure out that people aren't okay about shooting someone for trespassing, but for presenting themselves as an unknown and potentially dangerous threat that has already committed at least one serious felony and thus cannot be given the benefit of the doubt regarding committing another.

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps if you stay in these gun debates a little longer, you'll figure out that people aren't okay about shooting someone for trespassing, but for presenting themselves as an unknown and potentially dangerous threat that has already committed at least one serious felony and thus cannot be given the benefit of the doubt regarding committing another.

Unless, of course, that so-called unknown and potentially dangerous threat is a cop - then he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and the shooter is a no good, quick-on-the-draw cop killer.

 

[JohnRM]

Ok, they could be considered 'fun'. So can many drugs. That's not a reason to legalize them. Point is an automatic weapon is very dangerous, moreso than a non-automatic (whatever, exactly that is deemed to be).

My train of logic goes like this:

1) Machine guns are dangerous
2) No real need for people to own machine guns exists
3) Therefore, people should not have them
4) Therefore, make them illegal

Swimming is dangerous. Do you want to make it against the law?

It is not within your authority to address the people's needs or lack thereof.

 

[JohnRM]

Unless, of course, that so-called unknown and potentially dangerous threat is a cop - then he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and the shooter is a no good, quick-on-the-draw cop killer.

If law enforcement officers wish to enter a residence, they are obligated to announce their presence beforehand and identify themselves as law enforcement officers. If they fail to do so, they are taking their lives into their own hands.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wouldn't rpgs and machine guns be more useful to a militia anyway? Keep up the handgun ban, since a handgun is of limited value to a militia and then let people buy assault rifles and rpgs.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Wouldn't rpgs and machine guns be more useful to a militia anyway? Keep up the handgun ban, since a handgun is of limited value to a militia and then let people buy assault rifles and rpgs.

You can buy RPGs now? Cool! Uh, I mean, that's terrible.

I do know there are ways to legally own an AK-47 in the US.

 

[JollyRoger]

If law enforcement officers wish to enter a residence, they are obligated to announce their presence beforehand and identify themselves as law enforcement officers. If they fail to do so, they are taking their lives into their own hands.

What's to say the intruder is telling the truth about being a law enforcement officer?

 

[blackheart]

You can buy RPGs now? Cool! Uh, I mean, that's terrible.

I do know there are ways to legally own an AK-47 in the US.

You can only buy AKs if they're limited to single shot mode. Of ocurse there are kits to make them go full-auto but if you're found with one this is a big no-no felony.

 

[Spitefire]

new goverment standard operation seems to be to disarm and terrorize the folks of areas that have been flooded out.

(first Katrina and now, well you know)

 

[blackheart]

new goverment standard operation seems to be to disarm and terrorize the folks of areas that have been flooded out.

(first Katrina and now, well you know)

What?

 

[Bigfoot3814]

What?

After Katrina, the government tried to take guns off the already wild post-hurricane NO, and the NRA went all afritter.

 

[brennan]

...presenting themselves as an unknown and potentially dangerous threat that has already committed at least one serious felony and thus cannot be given the benefit of the doubt regarding committing another.

Execute burglars because they might be murderers? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Bugfatty300]

You can only buy AKs if they're limited to single shot mode. Of ocurse there are kits to make them go full-auto but if you're found with one this is a big no-no felony.

Not quite. You can own full-auto weapons with the paperwork and $200 tax for each gun. Full-autos aren't banned actually except for newly manufactured. You just have to pay a special tax.

And yes there are full-auto kits but they are not illegal to own and you can mail order them out of magazines.

After Katrina, the government tried to take guns off the already wild post-hurricane NO, and the NRA went all afritter.

They didn't try, they actually did confiscate guns in house to house searches. And now many states are enacting legeslation to keep police from taking people's guns during states of emergencies.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Fine for the courts and justice system. But in a self-defense situation?

I suppose you are against police using deadly force (or executions as you call them) because the suspect that is shooting up their patrol car or running at them with a chainsaw hasn't been given due process?