Oregon ballot measure to ban "Assault" Weapons

[stanc]

What no one here has done is provide any reasonable solutions.

Lets see some reasonable solutions.

Unfortunately, I doubt there are any solutions that both pro-gun people and the "March for Life" folks would consider reasonable.

[stanc]

But that is exactly our point: That there are other methods of mass casualties that are equally deadly. This points to the gun not being the problem; or stated differently, banning a certain type of gun isn't going to make a difference.

It's impossible to know how many, if any, of the perpetrators of mass shootings in this country would have conducted their attacks by other means if they hadn't had access to guns.

And, history does show us that banning (or heavily restricting) certain types of weapons actually can make a substantial difference.

There are no grenade attacks, because you can't go to your local sporting goods store and buy a case of fragmentation grenades.

Machine guns are not used in mass shootings, because of the stringent restrictions and background checks on prospective buyers.

Solutions?
1. Institutionalize those who need to be institutionalized

So you want to violate the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population out of fear that a small percentage of them might commit a violent act?

That's exactly what the anti-gun crowd advocates.

I am not willing to "compromise" on semi-auto rifles and "high capacity" magazines. My personal view is that the NFA already violates the 2A. As discussed elsewhere, state constitutional conventions, op-eds by Founding Fathers, personal letters by Founding Fathers indicated that the 2A was:
1. Personal defense
2. State defense (both external security and against internal tyranny)
3. Hunting (this was actually a very limited topic area broached only by a few states)

Yet the 2A itself makes no mention of either hunting or personal defense. Only state defense is noted.

[stanc]

I disagree Stan,LR55, dysfunctional type personalities will use what ever is readily available to harm others during a rage of uncontrolled anger.

Probably true, but a lunatic with an AR-15 and 100-rd magazines is capable of killing a helluva lot more people than a nut with a knife.

There is a reason why we have so many mass shootings, and so few mass stabbings.

There are over 250,000 deaths every year in the US because of medical malpractice, yet most people will never hesitate to seek medical help when sick or injured.

Again, not relevant.

The good out ways the risk logic.

Therein lies the problem: The "March for Life" people see no good in having rifles like the AR-15, and too much risk.

There have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century, yet many people wish to ban the very firearms which could help prevent such disasters. Division of power logic.

What sane person considers democide in this country to be even remotely possible?

In 2014, there were 248 murders with all types of rifles,"not just the AR type" in the US from the last records we have from the FBI. Considering mass murderers use other types of weapons and means to commit such acts, banning the AR type rifles is going to achieve very little.

You don't know what the effect would've been if the perpetrators of mass shootings had not had access to guns.

[stanc]

Montana is right, removing high-power, semi-auto's from a population will not change the mindset of homicidal maniacs.

True, but it would eliminate mass shootings with high-power, semi-auto's.

In Florida it might have been a truck mowing down kids congregating outside the school.

Might have been, but wasn't. He chose to use an AR-15.

Or in Las Vegas the nutter owned two light aircraft. He could have loaded one with extra drums of fuel and flown it into the packed concert.

Could have, but didn't. He chose to use AR-15s.

[phishfood]

stanc, if you are going somewhere with this, I would appreciate it if you would get to the point.

[BjornF16]

So you want to violate the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population out of fear that a small percentage of them might commit a violent act?

Oh the irony. Banning AR-15s and high capacity magazines is merely violating the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population out of fear that a small percentage of them might commit a violent act.

[BjornF16]

Yet the 2A itself makes no mention of either hunting or personal defense. Only state defense is noted.

<sigh>

Stan, the SCOTUS routinely looks to the original intent of the Constitution. You can grand stand all you want about the "language", but the truth of the matter is original intent matters.

Constitutional convention, state conventions, writings of the Founders clearly support my previous statement.

[Popeye212]

Just checked back on this thread to to see how stanc could keep yanking chains.

[BjornF16]

[FONT=&amp]SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER[/FONT]

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

---

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

---

[FONT=&amp]District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][I]Held: [/I][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][I] 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[/I][/FONT]
[I] (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. [/I]
[FONT=&amp][I] (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. [/I][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][I] © The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30. [/I][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][I] (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. [/I][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][I] (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. [/I][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][I] (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither [I]United States v. [I]Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor [I]Presser v. [I]Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. [I]United States v. [I]Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, [I]i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


[/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/FONT]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Anyways...SCOTUS doesn't agree with Stan.

Really miss Scalia...

In looking at (f) above, M4s should be available to us mere civilians (according to United States vs Miller) since the M4 is in "common use" within the military (both State Militias and Federal standing army).

[biodsl]

So you want to violate the Constitutional rights of a segment of the population out of fear that a small percentage of them might commit a violent act?

That's exactly what the anti-gun crowd advocates.

'Cepting for the due process piece received by the person being institutionalized. Just a little different.

[grayfox]

F16 you nailed it with this SCOTUS quote, especially in the middle:
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

The key that is noted here is that there was a very real fear the Federal government would disarm the citizenry "in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule..." this is precisely what the Left and the Libs are trying to do, in order to allow their own militia to rule over citizens at large, over the entire USA. And this is precisely what the 2A stands in the way of!!!!!
So, to summarize, to regulate away such common individual weaponry as an AR15, contra to 2A, is a real and personal threat to every citizen of the USA, whether they realize it or not. The junta-militia-left-wing gang rule is right on the heels of a successful disarmament, and that's what the left is constantly working for. So we must ever be on guard against it.
By the way, that general disarmament was also a key ingredient of Hitler's rise to power. They are simply following their leader on this point.
Never surrender. Never.

[biodsl]

By the way, that general disarmament was also a key ingredient of Hitler's rise to power. They are simply following their leader on this point.
Never surrender. Never.

And you don't need to look that far back to see what the government would like to do, and does, in the here and now:

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.
Police officers and federal law enforcement agents scoured the city carrying assault rifles seeking residents who have holed up to avoid forcible eviction, as well as those who are still considering evacuating voluntarily to escape the city's putrid waters.
"Individuals are at risk of dying," said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of the New Orleans police. "There's nothing more important than the preservation of human life."

Same old line; If we could just save one life...would someone please think of the children...yada yada.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/na...duckgo.com

[98Z]

(Credit: Live Free Armory, for this writeup).

Thought I'd share this, since this is where the conversation has turned...

We tend to turn our backs on history unless it’s convenient. You will never hear the anti-gun lobby remind you that it was the British gun control program forced upon the colonies that started the shooting war and not the issue of taxation. In 1774, the British Crown enacted an import ban on firearms and gunpowder. Continuing the ban in 1774 and into 1775, they also started confiscating firearms and gunpowder by force. If you look at this and other background historical facts, The Second Amendment was written purposefully so that our government could never turn on us again. We the people meant something to the founding fathers. We the people should mean something to us all.

The next time you get into an argument about The Second Amendment and the term militia, remind the person of this little talked about fact from Title 10—ARMED FORCES :

246. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So what does that mean? According to federal law, every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, not on active duty, in the reserve, or in the National Guard, is already a member of the unorganized militia. Females serving in the National Guard are also members of the militia. The law was updated in 2016 so it can’t be considered one of those seldom used archaic laws. Boom…we the people are the militia.

[LR1955]

Unfortunately, I doubt there are any solutions that both pro-gun people and the "March for Life" folks would consider reasonable.

Stan:

Never did I say the solutions have to be agreed to by the Pro Gun and March for Life crowds.

You are not providing any solutions but are certainly implying that the AR's are the problem.

If you think they should be banned, say so. If not, lets see your recommendations.

LR55

[Popeye212]

Thanks for posting those guys. Game me ammo.

[Klem]

True, but it would eliminate mass shootings with high-power, semi-auto's.


Might have been, but wasn't. He chose to use an AR-15.


Could have, but didn't. He chose to use AR-15s.

Stanc,

When accused you keep denying you are against AR's but all your retorts betray you. Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and just admit that you feel banning AR's and high cap mags will help. Are you frightened that you will be labelled an anti-gunner on a gun forum? The rest of us have already formed that opinion so you may as well be honest with us and we can move forward with this discussion.

[grayfox]

Being inspired by these 2A threads, I'm changing my signature line... one of my favorite quotes: Patrick Henry. What a preacher!

[biodsl]

You are not providing any solutions but are certainly implying that the AR's are the problem.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center: All but three (edit: four. As far as I know Sutherland Springs was not a gun-free zone) mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones. A stronger correlation than that nasty AR problem!

[montana]

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center: All but three mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones. A stronger correlation than that nasty AR problem!

I like to call them for what they really are, Gun Free Killing Zones.

[98Z]

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center:...

Which is Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., for those that didn't know it.