“The features of modern assault weapons—particularly the AR-15’s radical increases in muzzle velocity, range, accuracy, and functionality—along with the types of injuries they can inflict are so different from colonial firearms that the two are not reasonably comparable,” the order said.
Accuracy?
edit: I’m not disputing that the fact that an AR-15 is more accurate. I just don’t see how the improvement in accuracy makes the gun fall outside the scope of the second amendment. I mean, if you replace a rifled barrel with a smoothbore barrel on an AR-15, wouldn’t that make it more dangerous because you don’t know where the bullets would go?
In comparison to muskets that are accurate till about 50 to 100 feet this is a valid point I think. Not to mention the shots per minute difference between the weapons.
Look up the invention of rifling, amongst numerous other things.
Accuracy at the level available today is the difference between the Las Vegas shooter’s success and far less damage.
I also find it interesting that “accuracy” became the substance of your criticism rather than the argument as a whole.
E: personally I fully support the idea that that authors of the 2A never, ever thought that guns would have turned out this way. Guns were strictly utilitarian, people had one literally for putting food on the table and an immediate need of defense in an expanding country where there was literally no help for miles if you were lucky in some places. Urban and town life was different. The authors never could have foreseen arsenals in personal possession, never foreseen the ubiquitous use in everything from theft to suicide to school shootings. I’d die on the hill that had they any foresight at all where they thought this were a possibility, they would not have written it the way it stands today. They were shortsighted and myopic in some ways, but they weren’t stupid.
Accuracy means nothing when you’re firing into a crowd. You essentially cannot miss and worse accuracy probably would have meant the Las Vegas shooter would have hit more people.
A good deal of discussions centered around weapons technology, historical vs modern. A ban on assault weapons justified under the premise that they aren’t intended for self defense is understandable, but I didn’t see any mention of defining that.
Who has defined the characteristics of a weapon that’s used solely for self-defense, a weapon that’s used predominantly for hunting, and a weapon that’s used predominantly for warfare?
My views of weapon classification changed over time and after combat deployments. I feel like people’s viewpoints of this will vary widely based on their life experiences, and experiences personally firing weapons. Law makers will have difficulty coming to consensus on this.
is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court,
When Originalism backfires spectacularly!
This presents an interesting dilemma for conservative SCOTUS justices. How are they going to uphold a (stupid) adherence to original interpretations of laws and modern conservative judicial goals?
There is no reason to assume they’re operating in good faith. Duplicity is a core feature of the modern day “conservative” party, whatever the fuck that means.
They’ll do whatever they’ve been
bribedlobbied to do.Consistency and respect of precedents is not required for the position.
While I applaud the fact that Massachusetts residents have protons (EDIT: protections! That should have said protections!) the federal government was not able to provide, this feel like the beginning of the end.
If anything not literally written in the constitution is really up to the states, you are not really a country. You are a bunch of separate countries that happen to have an identical constitution.
It’s part of why so many things here in the good old u. s. of a. are backwards compared to other “modern” countries. It was founded by people who were trying to escape a “big” tyrannical government. So they put it into law that small government would have more power than the federal one. The USA then grew into one of the biggest governments in the world but the American ideals of distrusting large government is still there.
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment clearly state that the federal government has more, read: supreme, power over the states. You may be misremembering that the phrase “nor prohibited by it to the States” exists in the amendment. Basically, a federal law today will immediately and automatically nullify a 200 year old state law - precedence nor time of the state law will survive a Supreme Court review even if all 9 Justices are Federalist Society lackeys.
Is it remotely possible that other states will fall in line with this sort of thing? Sometimes there’s a domino effect with regards to controversial laws passed… for example, legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, etc.
Could something like this be what we need to start culling the senseless murders committed by people that can’t conduct themselves appropriately in society?
Oh! My favorite online topic. Let’s make this more fun.
Without reading the comments yet, here’s my guess:
- At least one person calls another stupid (got it)
- People say other people are wrong instead of having differing views (yep)
- There’s arguments about the physical properties of guns like what = assault rifle, how many bullets it holds is too much, or physical size (oddly specific to historical weapons which I don’t see a lot, but yep)
- Someone over simplifies a complex idea or problems
- Someone says they or their rights are more important than someone elses (got it)
Nah, I’m sure all the comments will be well thought out and articulated, considerate, and inspire reflection instead of eliciting defensiveness…
Edit: added comments to my list.
Man ever since they made the meth criminized its like I cant find it anywhere! Oh wait…
