After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

". . . are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms."

That sounds kind of cut and dried to me.

 

So you made my argument for me. The answer isn't as simple as blaming guns.

 

Yet the Navy Yard shooter killed I believe 12 people with a shotgun that can't hold more than 8 rounds. Plus, you can top off level actions and pumps on the go, thus virtually never running out.

 

Thats not all he said. The case is Workman vs Healy, you should read it

I just briefly glanced through it, his basis was the Scalia ruling that determined the 2nd amendment has limitations and weapons suitable for war are not protected under the 2nd amendment

Dont shoot the messenger lol, I dont want to get drawn into a discussion about how the AR 15 is not a weapon of war. Just sharing what I found. I do recommend looking up the actual case

 

I've never said it was as simple as blaming guns, i've just argued that the ease of access combined with other issues, whether socioeconomic or mental or whatever, contributes to a higher than normal gun violence rate compared to other first world nations.

 

As I said, this isn't directed toward you. Unless this judge can prove that semiautomatic AR-15s are used by the military, his position that it is a weapon of war is based on nothing. And there is no way that he does not know this.

 

I'm not sure someone could aim effectively firing that fast.

Although, he wasn't aiming. He was firing from the hip (gasp, and without a pistol grip too).

But yes, a lever rifle does fire about as fast as a semi-auto, especially if the shooter is trying to aim at the target for each shot.

The thing with the tubular magazine though is, every so often the shooter has to stop and reload, and reloading will not be as quick as swapping detachable magazines.

The old Henry and Winchester rifles were able to carry 15 rounds because the .44 rimfire and the .44-40 were essentially just handgun rounds. Lever action .30-30s only carry 8 rounds in the tube.

 

Yes, but the lethal potential was a lot less than if he had effectively possessed unlimited rounds due to multiple large magazines.

True. But pausing to reload over and over again will considerably slow down the rate of fire.

 

What's the point? It's just a low-level extremist judge ignoring both reality and the Constitution.

 

Not only that, but a weapon being used in war is no justification for banning it in any case.

A Colt M1911 pistol is a weapon of war. No justification exists for banning that.

 

That may be physically true, but statistics shows that the size of magazine have little effect on how many people are killed on average.

Which again, statistics shows that has little to do with the carnage inflicted.

 

It's not that it is a weapon of war. The judge is referring to Scalia's dictum that if it is like a weapon of war it can be regulated. Judge Young's judgment was that the AR 15 is sufficiently like a weapon of war to make it fair game for regulation. He may be wrong. Time will tell whether or not the ruling will be upheld. But the ruling is consistent with that of the 4th circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan, which referred to the AR 15 as being "like" M-16 rifles. The full Fourth Circuit held that the AR-15 and the semiautomatic AK-47 (and other banned semi-automatic rifles) are “not constitutionally protected arms” because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service.”The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, so the ruling in Kolbe stands in the Fourth Circuit. Our legal eagle Toggle tells us confidently, with characteristic bravado, that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn these positions. Mebbe so, if it ever grants cert.

 

The Rifleman was my hero when I was a kid, so you take that back. He could shoot the left wing off a bumblebee at 2300 yards (on a windless day) from the hip!

But seriously, I agree that no one could aim effectively firing that fast from the hip . . .

 

. . . except for the Rifleman!

 

So how is it "sufficiently" like a weapon of war?

Ultimately, the operative word there is "like." The fact is that it isn't.

His rulings may be consistent with others who also got it wrong, but that doesn't justify a ban.

 

Tell it to the judge.

 

Wheres it going to stop? Any firearm can be construed as a weapon of war.

 

My deer rifle is literally a wwii sniper rifle. Thats a weapon of war. Its a bolt action 30-06 with only a 3 round magazine

And its WAY more powerful than an AR15

 

This is another case of people who dont know anything about guns being gun experts...