Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

Strict Scrutiny allows only infringements that can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

Guns are arms.

All of his posts are truthful as far as I can see.

Sure there are.

See. There you go. Self defense is a natural right.

 

That objective is unacceptable.

Certainly any arm that would be used by an individual soldier to repel a foreign invasion would count.

Gun control people push for all sorts of bans.

Bans on pistol grips for example.

 

Because our gun control movement keeps trying to ban various types of guns.

You've stated that you do so. I've yet to see you state a reason why.

So why do they keep trying to ban various types of guns?

I am skeptical. Do you have a credible cite for this?

 

Who wants regulations? I haven't run into that guy yet.

 

oh the banners say they just want regulations, not bans

 

The UK has banned semi-auto rifles.

I don't understand the question.

Some cars certainly are.

Yes.

And so far no one has ever presented an argument that AR-15s are unsuitable in public.

Banning guns isn't good even if someone can present a good reason for doing so. But it is especially unacceptable when guns are banned for no reason at all.

It's because gun controllers keep trying to pass gun bans.

 

Libs love regulations. If they had their way they'd have toothpick regulations running into the thousands of pages. Name any human endeavor and libs want to control the effort and every person involved, from our schools to our dinner tables, from our vehicles to our face coverings, from our border security to our home security to... well... just about everything.

 

I prefer to use the term "serfs". The point is that people in the UK are no longer free.

Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

I know a little bit of it. The slighting of castles was an unforgivable crime against English heritage.

I know that one. 1920.

1689. The Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights.

It means "not free".

Full auto or semi auto?

Yes in either case, but there are some additional nuances depending on which you mean.

Having a handgun be as long as a rifle hardly makes it a handgun.

Some cars certainly are.

 

That is incorrect. Gun control efforts have nothing to do with safety.

If they cared about safety they wouldn't be trying to do things like outlaw pistol grips.

I find the notion that "freedom belongs in the past" to be quite Orwellian.

Wrong. AR-15s are 100% suitable. There is no justification for outlawing them.

 

Strict Scrutiny.

People are free to use their arms for self defense even if the state hopes that they will also use those weapons for militia service. That has always been a core feature of the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment certainly covers any sort of weapon that a militiaman would use to defend the state or repel a foreign invasion.

If a weapon is so powerful that it would not be of much use to a militiaman who was fighting to repel a foreign invasion or otherwise defend the state, it might be argued that that weapon was not covered by the Second Amendment.

What about weapons that are so powerful that they would be no use to a militiaman who was fighting to repel a foreign invasion?

 

I can see how the arms covered by the Second Amendment have always been the sorts of weapons that were possessed and operated by individuals. No crew served weapons.

But I don't know of anything that would restrict the Second Amendment from covering ordnance so long as it was possessed and operated by individual militiamen.

 

Namecalling.

Fake news. Never happened.

Fake news. Never happened.

(Meaning the "getting defeated" nonsense. I do agree that the French helped us.)

Neither has the UK, or anyone else.

 

See Bruen, compelling government interest interest balancing tests are not allowed.

 

No longer valid with regard to the 2nd.

 In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

 Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-843#writing-20-843_OPINION_4

 

I still personally like the idea of Strict Scrutiny. The standard is known and tested.

I'm not sure what the end result will be regarding the standard put forward in Bruen.

Time will tell whether the Supreme Court made a wise choice.

I get why they did it. The lower courts were making a mockery of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court wanted to put a stop to that.

But we don't really know what this new standard will end up doing.

Had they chosen Strict Scrutiny instead, it would have been much easier to predict the result. And that result would have been favorable to gun owners.

 

Strict scrutiny says, "shall not be infringed"

Never said they weren't. I said guns are not the only arms covered. In fact, there's no arms that are not covered, under strict scrutiny.

 

They are free to use their arms for any legal means. Self defense is not a core tenant..
It's not limited to militiaman. If one wants to make that argument, then there's an infringement.
What is so powerful? What if the other militia in the conflict has such an arm?

 

Your opinion is rooted in your admittedly willful ignorance.

 

Opinion? "shall not be infringed" is NOT my opinion.

What the Second Amendment Says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

 

Yes.
Your opinion, below:

- Strict scrutiny says, "shall not be infringed"
- I said guns are not the only arms covered.
- In fact, there's no arms that are not covered, under strict scrutiny.

Your opinion is rooted in your admittedly willful ignorance.

 

I accept your ignorance on the topic.
You must think guns are the only arms the 2A references. That would be ignorance on the subject.

 

You admit you have chosen to not read any of the jurisprudence regarding the 2A.

This means your opinions...
- Strict scrutiny says, "shall not be infringed"
- I said guns are not the only arms covered.
- In fact, there's no arms that are not covered, under strict scrutiny.
... are rooted in your willful ignorance.

That is, you choose to have no idea what you're talking about.

 

well I have noted in the past the following

1) bans on switchblade knives were struck down by the Oregon Supreme court using their second amendment state provision and 2) the even more moronic NYS ban on nunchaku was also struck down using HELLER

 

The end result is you the authority must show the analog of the law you want passed which was in effect in the 1790s. Can't do that? Can't have the law.

Its far better than strict scrutiny. Interest balancing tests are explicitly verboten.

 

Liberals would ban wet noodles so that only "time outs" would remain as tools for self defense.