re: Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’

quote:

---

It is easy to construct an argument that AR 15s are unreasonably dangerous simply by listing all the fatalities from mass shootings using that precise weapon.

---

No it's not. AR-15s in civilian hands number in the tens of millions - they sell almost as well as the most popular semi-auto handguns. Yet, despite that, rifles (of ANY type) are responsible for a couple percent of firearm homicides (per the FBI), and almost zero suicides via firearm. Of all the people killed via firearm in the US, the number killed via a semi-automatic rifle is a fraction of a percent.

There is absolutely NO way of statistically designating AR-15s as "unreasonably dangerous" without also applying the same designation to all handguns and shotguns (which, by the way, are statistically used MORE OFTEN than rifles in mass shootings).

quote:

---

would argue that "weapons of war" are the ONLY arms the 2A protects

---

Of course you are correct.
I would crush Scarborough on this point.

I find new ways to despise him as time goes on.

Imagine him, being slapped, hard.

Heller II case upheld the ban on AR 15s and large capacity magazines citing Heller I. The 4th Circuit ruled differently. It will require another Supreme Court opinion at some point. But it is simply wrong to say that Heller I definitively supports a position prohibiting the regulation or banning of AR 15s. Additionally, since Scalia clearly supports regulations regarding commercial sales, extensive background checks and strict registration requirements may well be said to be Constitutional as applied to AR 15s and large capacity mags.

quote:

---

But it is simply wrong to say that Heller I definitively supports a position prohibiting the regulation or banning of AR 15s. Additionally, since Scalia clearly supports regulations regarding commercial sales, extensive background checks and strict registration requirements may well be said to be Constitutional as applied to AR 15s and large capacity mags.

---

I didn't say that Heller did that. But Heller also does not explicitly discuss any such regulation. Scarborough makes it out as though it is settled that 2nd Amendment protection DOES NOT extend to the ownership of AR-15s, when that has never been held by the Supreme Court. Heller II is not nationwide precedent, it is the ruling of one federal District Court.

I draw the line at RPG's personally.

Are you really in NZ?

quote:

---

Because muskets were all they knew. There was no need for them to specify.
They had no knowledge of what was to come.

---

This is such a dumb statement. People do not and have not ever lived their lives at a complete standstill. The lives of the people of this country at its founding were in a constant state of change. Two hundred years prior, no one even knew the new world existed and now a fledgling country exists after defeating the mighty British army. Families that had relatively little chance of being landowners in their ancestral homelands suddenly have opportunities to thrive and prosper like the world has never seen. The idea that muskets is all they knew and couldn’t imagine what was to come is ridiculous and absurd. That’s like arguing that the cell phone is all we know and we have no imagination or forthought to see a world where cell phones are a thing of the past.

quote:

---

In automatic fire mode the M-16 will fire as many rounds as are in the magazine with a single pull of the trigger.

---

I've never really wanted an AR...until now.

quote:

---

Joe Scarborough: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect ‘Weapons of War’

---

Dumb a-hole, that is exactly what they protect!

quote:

---

"Unreasonably dangerous" weapons are an allowable classification subject to regulation. It is easy to construct an argument that AR 15s are unreasonably dangerous simply by listing all the fatalities from mass shootings using that precise weapon.

---

"Unreasonably dangerous" is not a term used in v. Heller, "unusual and uncommon" was the term used and the AR-15 class of firearms are neither unusual or uncommon. So your argument fails on that test. Also, Caetano v. Massachusetts:

quote:

---

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.

---