Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons

[ludin]

then is this a sideways post confirming you agree suspected terrorists should remain able to legally buy guns

he wasn't suspected of anything.

 

[Anthony60]

then is this a sideways post confirming you agree suspected terrorists should remain able to legally buy guns

You would need to define a "suspected terrorist". I think there is something like 81,000 names on the no fly list.

FBI no-fly list revealed: 81,000 names, but fewer than 1,000 are Americans - Washington Times

Democrats say those lists and a broader list, the Terrorist Screening Database, with about 1 million names, should be used to deny potential terrorists lethal weapons. Mrs. Feinstein has proposed banning those who appear on any of the lists from being able to clear a background check enabling them to purchase a firearm.

Or this one, with over a million names? If you are going to deny an American citizen their Constitutional rights, do you think that putting their name on a list is enough to do that? Seems pretty thin to me.

 

[Anthony60]

don't have any idea why you quoted my post to with which to share your inane presentation. possibly because you are without any evidence to help turtledude's defend his bogus assertionb

Turtledude doesn't need any help, he's eviscerated your "arguments" without any help from me. But don't get your hopes up, I'll eviscerate leftist propaganda all day long too.

 

[Aberration]

The FBI already shares their information from the watch lists with the NICS. If the person is a suspected terrorist, as in the legal standard of suspected, and tries to buy a firearm it is halted and the FBI is notified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Visbek]

The Heller decision spoke specifically to the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in their home.

It also explicitly stated that "it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." I.e. legislatures can legitimately legislate certain types of firearms, and Miller did license those types of laws.

The Miller decision noted that the 2A protected firearms "appropriate for use in an organized militia".

And Heller basically severed legal connections to militias, by interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

There can be no doubt that the AR15 fits that qualification due primarily to its ubiquitous use by police departments.

Or, not. Police are agents of the state, and as such they are not subject to the same regulations as apply to citizens.

 

[Visbek]

SCOTUS said no such thing. They did not take the case at this time, which means they can take it up in the future. It will be my bet that they will do it when there is no longer a 4-4 tie. So, for now, the lower court decision stands, but it won't be the final word on the matter.

It's pretty final.

This is the second time they refused to hear a case for a ban on assault rifles. The previous case was in December 2015, before Scalia died.

There may be some other cases, but it seems pretty clear that even if another conservative is on the court, this won't change any time soon.

 

[justabubba]

You would need to define a "suspected terrorist". I think there is something like 81,000 names on the no fly list.

FBI no-fly list revealed: 81,000 names, but fewer than 1,000 are Americans - Washington Times

Democrats say those lists and a broader list, the Terrorist Screening Database, with about 1 million names, should be used to deny potential terrorists lethal weapons. Mrs. Feinstein has proposed banning those who appear on any of the lists from being able to clear a background check enabling them to purchase a firearm.

Or this one, with over a million names? If you are going to deny an American citizen their Constitutional rights, do you think that putting their name on a list is enough to do that? Seems pretty thin to me.

unlike you i am willing to deny suspected terrorists access to legally purchased guns
it is your side that allows the terrorists to exploit our system

 

[justabubba]

Turtledude doesn't need any help, he's eviscerated your "arguments" without any help from me. But don't get your hopes up, I'll eviscerate leftist propaganda all day long too.

you are just as effective as turtledude

 

[justabubba]

The FBI already shares their information from the watch lists with the NICS. If the person is a suspected terrorist, as in the legal standard of suspected, and tries to buy a firearm it is halted and the FBI is notified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

can't board a plane but ok mister terrorist, go ahead and legally buy a gun
hope that is the RNC convention theme
expect the DNC to make it so

 

[Anthony60]

unlike you i am willing to deny suspected terrorists access to legally purchased guns
it is your side that allows the terrorists to exploit our system

Don't be afraid to answer the question. You seem to lack confidence in your ability to back up your position, I guess that's why you are not backing it up at all.

 

[justabubba]

Don't be afraid to answer the question. You seem to lack confidence in your ability to back up your position, I guess that's why you are not backing it up at all.

my position is that terrorists should not be allowed to legally buy guns
doesn't require any backup, only a modicum of intelligence

 

[Anthony60]

my position is that terrorists should not be allowed to legally buy guns
doesn't require any backup, only a modicum of intelligence

If we know they are terrorists, then we should be arresting them before they do anything. Why wait until they buy a gun?

 

[Anthony60]

unlike you i am willing to deny suspected terrorists access to legally purchased guns
it is your side that allows the terrorists to exploit our system

You are also willing to strip Constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[justabubba]

You are also willing to strip Constitutional rights from law abiding citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you are willing to allow terrorists to legally buy high powered weapons
not a good look
especially this november
keep espousing those things that provide aid and comfort to terrorists

 

[Anthony60]

you are willing to allow terrorists to legally buy high powered weapons
not a good look
especially this november
keep espousing those things that provide aid and comfort to terrorists

I see that you can't defend the unconstitutionality of your position, but feel free to try.

 

[Aberration]

It's pretty final.

This is the second time they refused to hear a case for a ban on assault rifles. The previous case was in December 2015, before Scalia died.

There may be some other cases, but it seems pretty clear that even if another conservative is on the court, this won't change any time soon.

That doesn't equal final. Even when SCOTUS rules, it's not final.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

And Heller basically severed legal connections to militias, by interpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

What connection are you talking about? There never was a legal connection.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Donny Brook]

What is the ratio of AR-15s used in an act of self-defense vs. criminal activity? That is likely what would be considered.

The vast overwhelming number of AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are legally owned by law abiding citizens and never used in any type of crime. More crimes are committed with concealable handguns, usually revolvers than by rifles.

But when you say "used in an act of self defense" are you suggesting that for self-defense a firearm must actually be fired? If so this is a false understanding of self defense. Our country has a huge nuclear arsenal "for self defense" yet we have only used these weapons twice----and not exactly in "self defense"-- in my opinion, but they are available for defense nonetheless.