
The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment (2014) - aaronbrethorst
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
======
mindcrime
_Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for
intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”_

And that tells you everything you need to know about Stevens. He isn't
interested in what the Constitution says, he just wants to do what he thinks
is right. What conceit.

The "powerful reasons" he cites, if they exist at all, are irrelevant unless
and until he can get his cockamamie plan of amending the Constitution pushed
through. In the meantime, maybe Federal judges should just worry about
enforcing the Constitution as it stands?

 _Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides
no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of
weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona
in recent years._

Actually it does, as, by and large, those weapons were _exactly_ those in
"common lawful use for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting", etc, _or a
functional equivalent_. Many, if not most, modern rifles sold specifically for
hunting are actually semi-automatic rifles, that function nearly identically
to an AR-15.

Understand, military style fully-automatic or select-fire weapons are NOT
being used in these shootings. In fact, a lawfully owned fully-automatic
weapon has almost never been used in the commission of a crime since the FBI
has kept records. I think there may be something like 1 or 2 cases in the past
100 years.

OTOH, a civilian AR-15 is actually not a "high powered weapon" at all, and is
only semi-automatic in function. There are commonly used deer hunting rifles
that are more powerful than an AR-15. In fact, there are handgun rounds like
the .454 Casull that can deliver more muzzle energy than the 5.56 NATO or .223
Remington rounds typically used in an AR-15.

This is the kind of crap you get when anti-gunners, who don't actually know
much about guns, try to spread misinformation and FUD just to advance their
agenda.

------
a3n
Back then, were members of a militia assumed to bring their own guns? If so, a
credible militia would have been impossible.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Back then, were members of a militia assumed to bring their own guns?

I believe so, yes, particularly the Minutemen-style militia members in New
England.

> If so, a credible militia would have been impossible.

Um, what? Did you mean "if not" rather than "if so"? As written, I can find no
logic in this sentence. To me, it seems to directly contradict the one before
it.

~~~
a3n
Yes, I meant if not, or without. Once my brain has thought it, it takes no
more responsibility.

------
devhead
just dusting off the ol' soap box, stay classy

