The judge is obviously not a conservative nor a Constitutional scholar. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or even self-defense of your home, although those things are facilitated by the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment´s purpose to to recognize the right of the People to be armed against a government that would seek to encroach on the liberties of the people. It is truly amazing that a great number of people writing about the 2nd Amendment simply skirt that obvious fact because it is not pc.

Duh! (what #1 said!)

Ban the sales even between private citizens? Yeah, we can´t have honest law abiding folks buying scary looking guns. Cause we know nut jobs and criminals will not be able to get their hands on scary looking guns. How many lives would not have been lost in Tucson if the nut case murderer had a normal capacity magazine? The left´s argument is that by decrease the opportunity to commit mass murder (less rounds immediately available), one will save lives. But is that true? Banning ´assault´ rifles would have done nothing to prevent Tucson. To be honest, I have a much higher chance of dying in an auto accident because some idiot was texting than I do from some mass murderer´s guns. So ban texting. Its for women and children don´t you know.

#1 and #2, then are you pushing for the sale of rocket-propelled grenades to individuals? How about chemical and nuclear weapons to individuals? For if the true purpose is to build a modern ´militia´, then no good militia-builder would want to be without the latest and greatest weapons of mass distruction.

But if you agree that there is no need for such weapons to be in the hands of individuals, then you recognize that we already place limits on what individuals may own. And if we already place limits, then the real question is where those limits should be. In light of multiple mass murders using such magazines, the judge/author makes a lot of sense. There is nothing magic about where the line is drawn today; less than 20 years ago, that line was drawn in a different place. There is no evidence that we are better off for having moved the line a few years back. There is plenty of evidence that we are worse off for that act.

Look up "Bump fire" on YouTube and watch semi-automatic rifles become automatic machine guns....legally. Aside from a huge fun factor for enthusiasts, it´s also very dangerous in the wrong hands. It hasn´t been mentioned in the conversations about weapons but it´s out there. More grist for the anti-gun crowd.

This is where I part company with the Second Amendment folks who take a hard line.

How will you protect yourself from your government with your guns when they have aircraft, tanks, and missiles? We no longer rely on "well regulated militia" to defend our homeland.

You do not need assault weapons to defend yourself from intruders or provide meat for the table.

#4, there were cannon in the days of the founding fathers. They didn´t include cannon in the second amendment.

So your argument falls flat.

I see the usual anti gun crowd got up bright eyed and bushy tailed this morning.
You are free to surrender any freedom you want as long as you do it for yourself only. As soon as your alleged wisdom extends to my rights, you are out of line.
My freedom does not exist at your pleasure.

He says all of this as someone who obviously does not understand what an "assault weapon" is -- just an ordinary, semi-automatic rifle with a black plastic stock. Sorry, but I get so tired of all the phony hysterics about some mythological creature. We may as well try to ban unicorns.

"I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That´s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state."

You´ll have to forgive me, #6, I don´t have all my information available right now, but a couple of years ago - I think it was in Chicago - the streets were blocked by hundreds of black men chanting that they were going to kill whitey. They eventually dispersed after terrifying the people who were trapped in their homes during this time but, had they started busting down doors to make good their threat, I don´t think a revolver would have helped much. I also suspect that the ´white girl´ who ´bled alot´ might have been in much better shape if she had been carrying an ´assault weapon´.

First: define what you mean by "assault weapon" if you want to have a meaningful conversation. The only real distinction is automatic vs. semi-automatic. "Assault" is a made-up, scare term.

Second: in what reality will passing laws that ban "assault" weapons and "high-capacity" (really? my 17-round 9mm magazine is "high-capacity"?) magazines will keep them out of the hands of people who already break the law?

All gun control laws accomplish is to prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves against law-breaking criminals.

#8, you and I have differed on this subject on several threads, so we´ve heard each other´s arguments more than once. I say again that, beyond a suitable weapon to protect ourselves and other suitable weapons to protect our homes, why would anyone want the automatic or semi-automatic weapons designed specifically for mass killing? I hear the argument that we should have the right to own any weapon we desire, but how does that translate to wanting one? I´ve grown up with guns, as any Texas ranch kid would have done. I´m familiar with them. I have never found that I had a need or desire for some variation of a machine gun with a big magazine.

Having a reservation about the "why" does not make me anti-Second Amendment.

The real problem here is we have people trying to discuss a topic they really know nothing about. Worse is they are trying to establish policy.

Most Americans, in fact just people only know about firearms from either the Entertainment world or the Media; neither accurately portrays facts about weapons.

AR-15s are not assault weapons. They are single shot rifles that require you to pull the trigger for each individual round sent downrange. How is that more dangerous than any other modern semiautomatic gun?

BTW - semi automatics have been around for 100 years now. AR-15s have been around for 60 years. Semiauto 9mm´s have been around for 100 years as well.

I´ll let the words of Samuel Adams be my response to this clearly misguided jurist:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

-Samuel Adams

BTW - for you 2nd Amendment deniers, please read the article at this thread:

http://lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=716363

Would you also limit freedom of the press to actual, Ben Franklin-style printing presses? After all, that´s what they had when the Constitution was drafted! No using technology of today!

Think about it. The 2nd Amendment is in place to protect we mere citizens from tyranny - from without and from within.

Reply 4 - Posted by: rabbit, 12/21/2012 6:311 AM (No. 9077177)

#1 and #2, then are you pushing for the sale of rocket-propelled grenades to individuals? How about chemical and nuclear weapons to individuals? For if the true purpose is to build a modern ´militia´, then no good militia-builder would want to be without the latest and greatest weapons of mass distruction.


What? No biologicals? Here is the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Draw what conclusions you will from it, it is not what you or the learned justice propose.


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. ...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
FEDERALIST No. 29Concerning the Militia

Today fully automatic machine guns are not banned in the USA, but are tightly controlled, with the owners having to obtain a special license from the ATF. No crimes have been reported committed with fully automatic firearms in many years.

Today so called "assault weapons" are nothing more then semi-automatic firearms, , that look like military grade fully automatic firearms. There is a big difference.

The liberal Democrats intend to define all semi-automatic firearms that could possible hold a clip or magazine containing over 10 rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons" subject to their proposed ban. That would encompass just about every modern firearm manufactured and sold in the USA today.

Besides taking away the rights of hundreds of millions of law abiding Americans to purchase and own a modern firearm because of the homicidal criminal actions of a few mentally ill people, the liberal Democrats would be destroying much of the small arms industry in the USA, because that industry could not survive on military contracts alone, thus wiping out thousands of well paid American jobs.

Shotguns, repeatedly fired, utilizing heavy loads like OO buck can easily kill as many people as most semi-automatic rifles and handguns, are shotguns to be banned as soon as one is used by a crazy person?

Want to save children´s lives? The first thing you do is outlaw abortion.