Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned (2 Viewers)

[jonny5]

Not sure why it doesn't make sense. Guns are arms. So are artillery and nukes. Nuclear arms are an entire class of arms. If you want a literal reading of the Constitution, private ownership of all those things should be guaranteed in the Constitution. They are not. Should we be outraged?

Technically you cant bear some of those, but YES. And in fact people did own artillery, warships, canons, etc.

But if the literal reading or meaning of the law needs to change there is a method to do it. Amend the constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do you know this?

Because I read the crap they put out--For example-The leading anti gun "health care" associated "researcher is David Hemenway of Harvard School of Public Health (not the Medical school)

here is his resume

David Hemenway - Wikipedia

He has a B.A. (1966) and Ph.D. (1974) from Harvard University in economics.

 

[ataraxia]

Except you miss the Keep and bear bit. The second amendment was about arms citizens would normally be able to keep and bear. Nukes aren't something that qualifies

There is nothing normal about bump stocks, high capacity magazine clips, or assault weapons (I know you guys don't like that term, but that's just too bad because that's what they are).

 

[ataraxia]

Technically you cant bear some of those, but YES. And in fact people did own artillery, warships, canons, etc.

But if the literal reading or meaning of the law needs to change there is a method to do it. Amend the constitution.

Nope. That's what the Supreme Court is for.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-Justice Antonin Scalia, DC vs. Heller

 

[ataraxia]

Because I read the crap they put out--For example-The leading anti gun "health care" associated "researcher is David Hemenway of Harvard School of Public Health (not the Medical school)

here is his resume

David Hemenway - Wikipedia

He has a B.A. (1966) and Ph.D. (1974) from Harvard University in economics.

So one guy with a degree in economics means they are all not doctors? Seriously?

 

[TurtleDude]

There is nothing normal about bump stocks, high capacity magazine clips, or assault weapons (I know you guys don't like that term, but that's just too bad because that's what they are).

People who are anti gun calling stuff "assault weapons" only proves our point. so is calling something a "magazine clip". Those are standard issue magazines-hardly abnormal.

Why don't you tell us what a "normal" magazine is for a semi auto rifle? Given that AR 15s were sold with 20 and 30 round magazines LONG before the anti gun movement even thought about attacking the ownership of such rifles, your argument has zero merit

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope. That's what the Supreme Court is for.

DICTA that was written PRIOR to McDonald and references the now fairly universally accepted belief that people can-through due process of law-lose certain constitutional rights.

 

[ataraxia]

People who are anti gun calling stuff "assault weapons" only proves our point. so is calling something a "magazine clip". Those are standard issue magazines-hardly abnormal.

Standard issue to whom? Soldiers in war zones? That's your standard for "normal use" for civilians?

 

[TurtleDude]

So one guy with a degree in economics means they are all not doctors? Seriously?

Most are not. Have you actually bothered reading the anti gun literature and the academic credentials of those who produce it?

 

[ecofarm]

There is nothing normal about bump stocks, high capacity magazine clips, or assault weapons (I know you guys don't like that term, but that's just too bad because that's what they are).

Assaulting a fortified position requires suppression fire (to maneuver close). A rifle (rifle cartridge) capable of auto fire (the only purpose of auto fire is suppression) is an assault rifle. Looks don't matter. Looks will not get me to the bunker. Auto fire = assault. No auto fire = stay in foxholes.

 

[TurtleDude]

Standard issue to whom? Soldiers in war zones? That's your standard for "normal use" for civilians?

AR-15s were never issued to soldiers in US history. Nor marines, sailors nor Airmen. Civilians had access to 14 shot semi auto pistols long before our military issued such firearms as well. The US government sold several hundred thousand actual obsolete military carbines to US civilians, along with millions of 15 and 30 round magazines.

 

[TurtleDude]

Assaulting a fortified position requires suppression fire (to maneuver close). A rifle (that which fires a rifle cartridge, technically) capable of auto fire (the only purpose of auto fire is suppression) is an assault rifle. Looks don't matter. Looks will not get me to the bunker.

Right you are-the anti gun movement wants people to think of "criminal assault" when they call semi auto rifles (that lack the feature that was designed to facilitate MILITARY ASSAULT) "assault weapons". the need was found to exist in the vicious street fighting on the Eastern Front 1941-44 because the Russian (Maxim) and German machine guns were mostly heavy and advancing infantry would often encounter fixed fortified positions before the machine gunners could show up to suppress fire. So "assault rifles" were invented to allow several fast moving soldiers to suppress defensive fire so as to allow an engineer to get close enough to take out the position with a flamethrower, a bazooka or most likely a satchel charge.

 

[ecofarm]

Right you are-the anti gun movement wants people to think of "criminal assault" when they call semi auto rifles (that lack the feature that was designed to facilitate MILITARY ASSAULT) "assault weapons". the need was found to exist in the vicious street fighting on the Eastern Front 1941-44 because the Russian (Maxim) and German machine guns were mostly heavy and advancing infantry would often encounter fixed fortified positions before the machine gunners could show up to suppress fire. So "assault rifles" were invented to allow several fast moving soldiers to suppress defensive fire so as to allow an engineer to get close enough to take out the position with a flamethrower, a bazooka or most likely a satchel charge.

If one is in a foxhole, it's because they have suppression fire. If one does not also have suppression fire, one is staying there.

 

[TurtleDude]

If one is in a foxhole, it's because they have suppression fire. If one does not also have suppression fire, one is staying there.

Absolutely true-select fire is used by individual soldiers to either break contact or suppress hostile fire

 

[ecofarm]

Absolutely true-select fire is used by individual soldiers to either break contact or suppress hostile fire

I once heard someone bemoan carrying the squad mg. It's an honor. Without it, no one goes anywhere.

 

[joko104]

Their product is made to shoot and kill other people. It is not the failure of their product that is the main concern - it is when it works as intended.

That is false. It is designed to be a firearm. It is not made to murder people. Killing people is not illegal. Murdering people is.

Cars can not only kill people, but also can be used to murder people. Killing people is not illegal. Murdering people is.

 

[TurtleDude]

I once heard someone bemoan carrying the squad mg. It's an honor. Without it, no one goes anywhere.

yep, same thing about the BAR guys 75 years ago. They generally were the fire suppression guy until the Browning 30 gunners could catch up

 

[ecofarm]

yep, same thing about the BAR guys 75 years ago. They generally were the fire suppression guy until the Browning 30 gunners could catch up

Squad mg can be like, "sorry, captain, we're not going that way" and, at that moment, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

 

[ataraxia]

Most are not. Have you actually bothered reading the anti gun literature and the academic credentials of those who produce it?

Yeah sure. There are numerous medical doctors, researchers in the biomedical sciences, or public health specialists contributing to the field. If you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your assertions, please provide it.

 

[ataraxia]

That is false. It is designed to be a firearm. It is not made to murder people. Killing people is not illegal. Murdering people is.

Cars can not only kill people, but also can be used to murder people. Killing people is not illegal. Murdering people is.

So I want to buy a nuclear bomb to use as a paperweight. Is that OK?

 

[ecofarm]

So I want to buy a nuclear bomb to use as a paperweight. Is that OK?

"Arms of the militia (infantry)." Everything else is, by default, a weapon of national defense.

 

[ataraxia]

"Arms of the militia (infantry)."

The Coast Guard militia has live artillery ammo and missile launchers. Can I have some too?

 

[ecofarm]

Some militia has live artillery ammo and missile launchers.

I, and many, interpret arms to mean firearms and thereby exclude ordnance, rockets and such.

And no, we infantry don't get to play with artillery. We get TOW missiles, but the anti air stuff is left to guys trained in that.

 

[ecofarm]

The Coast Guard militia has live artillery ammo and missile launchers. Can I have some too?

The infantry (militia) of the Coast Guard would be applicable. Not the Coast Guard in its entirety. And only the arms of their infantry.

 

[ataraxia]

I, and many, interpret arms to mean firearms and thereby exclude ordnance, rockets and such.

And no, we infantry don't get to play with artillery. We get TOW missiles, but the anti air stuff is left to guys trained in that.

So why does it matter what you interpret?

Point is, “the right to arms shall not be infringed” has not come to mean by the Supreme Court to mean unlimited access to whatever you interpret you want.