Florida School Shooting

[Cow Poke]

Here's the part MM neglected to bold:

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Interesting - in this paper - which I know you won't download and read with objectivity - the phrase "dangerous and unusual weapons" is discussed.

Abstract

In dicta, the Supreme Court in Heller cited the historical ban on “Dangerous and Unusual Weapons” to support a common use test on statutes that ban certain types of weapons considered to be “dangerous and unusual”. This paper examines the historical use and definition of the phrase “Dangerous and Unusual Weapons” and concludes that it refers not to a class of weapons, but to a class of behavior.

Citation Information

Daniel R Page. "Dangerous and Unusual Misdirection: A look at the common law tradition of prohibiting going armed with dangerous and unusual weapons to the terror of the people as cited in District of Columbia v. Heller" ExpressO (2011)

[Mountain Man]

Jimmy selectively choosing which words from the Supreme Court decision he wants to use to support his position reminds me of the Marx Bros. skit where they're going over a lengthy contract, and every time Groucho would read a section, Chico would say, "I don'na like that. Take it out." So Groucho would tear out the offending paragraph and continue on until they got to the very last paragraph about the sanity clause. Chico says, "You can'na fool me! I know there's no such-a thing as a Sanity Clause!" By the time they're finished, the contract is reduced to nothing but a line and the words "Sign here."

[Sparko]

Here's the part MM neglected to bold:

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And today AR-15s are in common use so they are included in the second amendment. Duh.

[Cow Poke]

And today AR-15s are in common use so they are included in the second amendment. Duh.

He's gonna insist that "common use at the time" meant in the Colonial Days - muskets and flintlocks.

[Sparko]

He's gonna insist that "common use at the time" meant in the Colonial Days - muskets and flintlocks.

That is where he is not reading Scalia in context. He is arguing for weapons in common use at the time the question comes up. Back then it was pistols and muskets. In the 1800's it was pistols and repeating rifles. In the 1900's it was all those and semi-automatics and automatics. In the next century it might be phasers and blasters.

[Cow Poke]

That is where he is not reading Scalia in context. He is arguing for weapons in common use at the time the question comes up. Back then it was pistols and muskets. In the 1800's it was pistols and repeating rifles. In the 1900's it was all those and semi-automatics and automatics. In the next century it might be phasers and blasters.

Essentially, whatever is in use at the time to defend yourself against a rogue government.

[JimL]

He's gonna insist that "common use at the time" meant in the Colonial Days - muskets and flintlocks.

Very good CP. That's correct, AR-15s were not in common use at the time, nor, I would argue, are they really in common use today. So AR-15s, just like surface to air missiles or nuclear weapons, were not in the minds of the Founding Fathers when writing the 2nd amendment.

[Cow Poke]

Very good CP. That's correct, AR-15s were not in common use at the time, nor, I would argue, are they really in common use today. So AR-15s, just like surface to air missiles or nuclear weapons, were not in the minds of the Founding Fathers when writing the 2nd amendment.

You called, it, Pirate:

That is where he is not reading Scalia in context. He is arguing for weapons in common use at the time the question comes up. Back then it was pistols and muskets. In the 1800's it was pistols and repeating rifles. In the 1900's it was all those and semi-automatics and automatics. In the next century it might be phasers and blasters.

As for AR-15's not being in common use today.... "AR-15s were not in common use at the time, nor, I would argue, are they really in common use today."

This just goes to show how profoundly ignorant you are on guns.

NBC News - America’s rifle: Why so many people love the AR-15

I mean, it's just buttdumb nutty to make such a claim.

[Mountain Man]

That is where he is not reading Scalia in context.

Not only not reading him in context but not reading him at all. Notice he has yet to answer my question about whether or not he has read the actual decision for himself instead of relying on an anti-gun nut's website who can't even get the quote right.

[Sparko]

Essentially, whatever is in use at the time to defend yourself against a rogue government.

and doesn't include things like bombs and missiles.

[Sparko]

Very good CP. That's correct, AR-15s were not in common use at the time, nor, I would argue, are they really in common use today. So AR-15s, just like surface to air missiles or nuclear weapons, were not in the minds of the Founding Fathers when writing the 2nd amendment.

AR-15s are in common use today. There are millions of them. They function exactly like any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

Here is a video showing that. Please watch:

[Jedidiah]

You called, it, Pirate:





As for AR-15's not being in common use today.... "AR-15s were not in common use at the time, nor, I would argue, are they really in common use today."

This just goes to show how profoundly ignorant you are on guns.

NBC News - America’s rifle: Why so many people love the AR-15

I mean, it's just buttdumb nutty to make such a claim.

Not to mention that it is little different than any other semi automatic rifle.

[Cow Poke]

Not to mention that it is little different than any other semi automatic rifle.

And manufactured under multiple licenses from many manufacturers!

[Sparko]

And manufactured under multiple licenses from many manufacturers!

And it is what? 50 years old? It is old technology. Been around forever. It's not like it is some new fangled weapon of mass destruction that they just came up with.

[Cow Poke]

And it is what? 50 years old? It is old technology. Been around forever. It's not like it is some new fangled weapon of mass destruction that they just came up with.

Since 1959 - almost as old as me!