“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?
deleted by creator
That’s great. But they had rifling and accuracy at 300 meters. They had breech loading, and cartridges too. The Army just didn’t want to adopt them.
deleted by creator
Not really. Hold on lemme go get you some examples.
https://www.browning.com/products/firearms/rifles/bar/bar-mk-3-dbm-wood.html
deleted by creator
Well yeah. My point is the AR-15 isn’t anything special these days. To single it out is irresponsible at best. We need to tackle the general issue of semi-auto rifles with external magazines. Everything else is just performative crap.
deleted by creator
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.
You need to read federalist papers then, if you assume the founders had no idea about technology. Guns of the time were already getting multiple barrels and rounds. You could also own warships privately and people did. That’s the equivalent of owning a nuclear sub these days. To say the 2nd doesn’t apply to modern firearms, means you agree that the 1st doesn’t apply to the Internet.
I’ve read the Federalist Papers in their entirety and I see 0 defense for the modern interpretation of the second amendment among them
That’s because there isn’t any. At the constitutional convention they considered a version that included on express personal right to keep guns and it was unanimously rejected.
ROFL no they did not, we had just won a war with privately armed citizens and ownership against a standing army…read the first two paragraphs of paper #28…
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493341
Those papers are not saying what you want them to say. Alexander Hamilton is saying Militias are not good enough and if a standing army goes awry then the state’s forces can stand up to them.
He is literally advocating for the police and national guard. Part of his argument is that the modern GOP idea of minutemen was bad and that the Continental Army did the heavy lifting. So we should do what we need until we can raise a standing Army and then use State forces as a check against tyranny at the federal level.
“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
The first two paragraphs of paper number 28…you clearly haven’t read them then.
THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government), has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.
It’s literally saying that we just fought a war with a standing army, and that if we had one and shit went south the people will need to stand up to put it down.
This is arguing in favor of the national government having the ability to mobilize forces. At the time, there was no standing army
Again, I mentioned it being relevant today. The US government neither wants nor needs your help
Great so the police and national guard fulfill that function. We can safely ban private ownership now since the need they expressed is fulfilled.
The first largely doesn’t. There’s vanishingly few government owned discussion spaces. And Meta/Reddit/Lemmy are not constrained by the first amendment.
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.
Really… Ever fired a smooth bore gun? I have. They’re plenty of fun, so long as your protection and ability to eat don’t rely on them. The difference in accuracy at range, plus maintaining velocity, is very different.
I’ll offer you this to read rather than me reinventing the wheel.
https://gizmodo.com/the-physics-of-bullets-why-a-modern-gun-shoots-10-time-5944455
I also find it interesting that “accuracy” became the substance of your criticism rather than the argument as a whole.
Would you care to elaborate on this?
If you read my edit, it’s already in there. Just like the judge said, modern firearms fall well outside the scope of weapons available to, and used by, the public at large. Yea, there’s ridiculous arguments of private citizens owning what constituted literally military weapons in the early days of the country, but those argument are devoid of framing.
So, in case you didn’t read the article:
“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons—specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” the order said, and the current restrictions “pose a minimal burden on the right to self-defense and are comparably justified to historical regulation.”
…
“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.
Hence my argument in agreement with the assessment.
If you read my edit, it’s already in there. Just like the judge said, modern firearms fall well outside the scope of weapons available to, and used by, the public at large.
Nowhere in the article does the judge use the phrases or words “modern firearms” “public” “scope” “available.” That is your interpretation of what the judge said. I asked for you to elaborate so I would be on the same page as you. I think I have a different viewpoint than you. I don’t expect that my interpretation of what the article says will align 100% with how you interpret it.
Ah yes, ignore the argument again and quibble over grammar and vocabulary.
Whatever man.
The only purpose for the BULLETHOSE BABYKILLER 2000 is mass murder, and is an extreme threat to public safety, and please ignore the contract to put one in every police car in the country
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.
Guns were not strictly utilitarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelling_pistol
Framing mean anything to you? Just because you don’t find it utilitarian for mean that wasn’t a job they did then.
Dueling pistols were known for being ornate.
Look up the invention of rifling, amongst numerous other things.
Yes
They used to line up both armies in a field and all fire at each other at the same time with the hope of some musket balls hitting the other side. The invention of rifling increased accuracy greatly but was very difficult to do at the time. The muskets they used during the American revolution were very in-accurate, soldiers loaded inconsistent amounts of powder, the bullets were inconsistent sizes and density, and the barrels were limited by manufacturing methods.
Okay? But the AR-10’s increased accuracy, muzzle velocity, range, and functionality are fine?
If you have a problem with AR, then replace that with “any modern semi-auto hunting rifle”. Because there is no functional difference.
Just for a minute I wish the gun control lobby would actually learn about guns. They’d be far more effective. And the for the record, I want them to be more effective.
It’s weird that high rate of fire and large magazine capacities aren’t mentioned because that is by far the deadliest aspect of modern firearms. Hand guns have both of those and are responsible for much more violent crime. Muzzle velocity, range, and accuracy describe most hunting rifles. I’d rather someone shoot 1 round of 50 cal per second from a 5 round magazine than 10 rounds of 9mm per second from a 30 round magazine.
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.
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.
That’s literally the idea.
No that’s literally NOT the idea. The Articles of Confederation are what you get when that idea is implemented. The modern Constitution was created as a result of the failure of the AoC
No it’s not.
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Amendment
deleted by creator
That’s not a GOOD idea though. Jettisoning 150 years of precedent and returning to the actual text of the constitution and nothing else means that you guy effective lose the ability to act like a modern state. It’s only a matter of time.
How is not everyone freaking out over this?
You guys worked really hard to get here. I can’t believe everyone is on board with “fuck being the greatest country in the world, we’ll just be a loose federation of constantly squabbling middle powers.”.
How is not everyone freaking out over this?
Because you’re wrong. Massachusetts is not throwing out all amendments to the constitution. They’re just adopting a saner interpretation of one of them, one more in line with a modern and civilized country.
The Massachusetts ruling is not the problem here. This is the tiny silver lining in a really big storm cloud. The court has shown us that they are not just trying to implement conservative policy using textualism as a fig leaf. They are tied to the mast and intend to really rule on the text of the U.S. constitution.
Pretty much all your social programs and regulatory systems depend on a very creative interpretation of the constitution to get around the reserve clause. But if SCOTUS starts jettisoning out those interpretations and moving to eg a literal interpretation of the commerce clause and other popular loopholes, it all comes tumbling down.
Social security? Medicare? The FCC? The EPA? NASA? All history.
More information on the constitutional basis for social security and other programs can be found straight from the horse’s mouth:
While your analysis of the way that the courts have been implementing conservative policy is spot on, I have to disagree with your conclusions about how it will play out in practice.
Social security? Medicare? The FCC? The EPA? NASA? All history.
Surely this would be a wet dream for the most diehard conservatives, but the reality is that there exists simply too much popular support for many of these programs. Constitutional or not, take away people’s social security checks and there would be a popular backlash unlike anything we’ve seen in ages.
Having said that, if Trump gets elected, who’s to say that he wouldn’t try to take a swipe at some of the more controversial programs, like the EPA? That certainly seems plausible, but the idea of fully dismantling the federal bureaucracy seems far-fetched.
They’d be more than happy to hold a Constitutional Convention to fix that. They’d sell it as making a Constitution that allows for stuff like social programs.
Except they’ve been practicing for one for decades and their actual proposals are downright insane. Like rolling back women’s suffrage.
deleted by creator
Oh that’s easy. The education system completely whitewashed the real issues of the civil war. In the North they teach it was about slavery and in the South they teach it was about State’s Rights. And yes part of it was the right of states to be slave states.
But the actual core dispute was the balance of power between the states and the federal government. The South left because they didn’t think they could get anything out of the federal government. And rather than accept the national attitudes on Slavery were changing, they decided their local rule was more important.
So here we are 150 years later, slowly dismantling the federal government because one side is captured by lost cause ideologists who want the early 1800’s weak federal government back. The other side has been captured by wealthy libertarians who think rich people shouldn’t have any duties or burdens to their country.
Neither side wants a strong federal government beyond a military that’s banned from domestic operation. And the people are too busy arguing over statues to notice the house is unified in dismantling itself.
I applaud the fact that they have protons AND electrons
Our electrons are rigged
Don’t be so negative
And don’t forget the neutrons. The Switzerland of subatomic particles.
(Thanks, i really didn’t notice the autocorrect snafu)
I hate these filthy neutrons, Kif. With enemies, you know where they stand but with neutrons, who knows? It sickens me.
10th amendment specifies exactly what you’re saying, that nothing explicitly written is up to the people or states.
Well that’s exactly my point. It’s gutting 150 years of precedent making you guys a country.
It’s not a good thing. A war was fought over this.
Firstly I agree
Secondly
You are a bunch of separate countries that happen to have an identical constitution.
How is that any different than the european union
The EU constitution is not a real constitution. We just call it that to freak out the crazies. But it’s just a treaty instrument.
The U.S. is a drastically different beast than the EU it’s right now.
That is what the original intention of the states was, was to allow a diversity of systems under one overarching banner.
How did the EU come into this?
By me asking if there was any discernible difference?
Fair enough.
But how did YOU come into this…world?
Unwillingly
I feel ya. I myself held out for two extra weeks until I had to give up and be born.
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 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?
I’m pretty sure they’ll just do whatever they want and make up a justification afterwards. Originalism is just Calvinball minus the intellectual honesty.
Nah, this judge based the ruling on the principle that the banned weapons were unsuitable for self defense use. SCOTUS will just say that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense and that it clearly intended that every American should be entitled to own weapons of war so that they can be part of that well-regulated militia that they imagine exists. To celebrate, they will then overturn all laws banning the ownership of full machine guns, artillery, and missiles.
P.S. I’m really just being absurd here but I cannot honestly say I would be surprised if it turned out I was right.
You expect they intend to apply their interpretations consistently. They do not.
Justice Scalia, the OG textualist, based on nothing in any statute or the Constitution, extended governmental sovereign immunity in tort to defense contractors.
When they claim to be adherents of any consistent interpretation of the Constitution, they are lying, and they know they are lying. The only consistency in conservative “jurisprudence” is handouts to corporations and police, churches and baseball.
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.
Duplicity is a core feature of the modern day
political climate
They’ll do whatever they’ve been
bribedlobbied to do.Consistency and respect of precedents is not required for the position.
Do you really want courts reinterpreting established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism”? That sounds fashy to me, really stupid easy to abuse. If you don’t like the Constitution, change it. It has instructions on how to do that.
Let me stop you right there. There would sooner be a civil war than an amendment to the Constitution.
Do you really want courts reinterpreting established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism”?
That’s precisely what originalism does for the sake conservative political goals. Established law gives originalism its rhetorical force—“We’re just interpreting the law as it was intended to be!”—but makes little sense in any other period of American history. For example, somehow the Supreme Court of the mid and late 1960s justified the federal government’s interference in state affairs. But the modern Supreme Court, armed with its interpretations based on the original interpretation of the Constitution, find it suspect and support dismantling it?
The Constitution was supposed to be a living document, to evolve over time. There’s no justification for trying to not only roll back modern gains, but then freeze the law at the founding forever into the future.
That’s not to say that courts should reconsider “established law on a whim for the sake of “modernism””. There should be strong legal justifications for doing that as there were during the mid-late 1960s.
Also, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “fashy”. I get you mean fascist, but…how is interpretation of the law fascist? Fascists are largely unconcerned with the law, and if they are, it’s in the service of power, not modernism. That’s why I’d argue that the Supreme Court justices, as conservative as they are, aren’t fascists specifically, though they might enable it by abdicating their judicial duties. Even Thomas, the corrupt motherfucker he is, cares about the law for more than power…he really just hates everything.
The Constitution was supposed to be a living document, to evolve over time. There’s no justification for trying to not only roll back modern gains, but then freeze the law at the founding forever into the future.
That’s why there’s a process for changing it built right in. That process does not include the judiciary taking on the role of the legislative branch.
how is interpretation of the law fascist?
You’re not suggesting interpretation of the law. You’re suggesting reinterpretation of the law. Changing it without changing it, implying that the actual words mean nothing, or whatever a judge decides they mean this week.
Fascists are largely unconcerned with the law, and if they are, it’s in the service of power, not modernism
Fascists love the law, it’s one of their most powerful weapons. Luckily for them, they’re never targeted by it, they simply interpret it in a way that it can be used against their enemies.
Let me stop you right there. There would sooner be a civil war than an amendment to the Constitution.
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?
I don’t think you’re going to see Texas falling in line with this one. Other restrictive East Coast states might.
I keep looking back to Australia for comparison of lowing gun related crimes as a whole.
I think people not conducting themselves in society has been a trend ever since greed and power where invented. Whether you’re a biblical history person, or a cave man history person, someone has been hitting someone else in the head with a stick since we learn how to use thumbs.
Edit: oh you’re the disgruntled one from earlier. Hi there
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.
You forgot to add the one about how someone will arrogantly complain about what people comment without ever intending to discuss the contents of the actual article.
😉, arrogant…matter of perspective.
I did comment. My sarcasm is an indictment of people’s online discussion conduct. They name call for starters.
You didn’t comment. You just opined some edgy nonsense on the quality of responses without offering a single discussion point on the topic of the article.
Hop back to Reddit with this shit.
People say other people are wrong instead of having differing views (yep)
Unfortunately the uneducated masses in this country literally cannot recognize statements of fact from statements of opinion, literally cannot recognize evidence when you put it right in front of them.
Someone says they or their rights are more important than someone elses
I mean… this is a simple truth. I have the right to free speech, but I can still be held legally accountable if my words cause actual harm. In such instances, other people’s rights to various things override my right to free speech. (Yes, I’m simplifying. Free speech is just a quick example.)
I agree. I find it difficult for people to acknowledge that all parties of a topic that brings strong opinions have rights.
There’s a balance or compromise needed, but it’s easy to believe one person’s right trumps another’s, but how to determine who’s is more important is a difficult. We usually go with greater good, or personal life experiences.
I think it’s easy to side against firearms for the sake of safety and a greater good. I can’t imagine Americans allowing laws that restrict being allowed to have children though. I imagine most people would say that having children falls into an inalienable right category, but are there instances where people wouldn’t have been allowed to have kids if you had to apply for some kind of license?
Both examples affect safety and human lives.
Merry Christmas
You forgot the one where a rapist’s right to a firearm is more important than their partner’s safety
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.
It was never about self defense. It’s about people wanting to own cool guns and trying to justify owning them. It’s also about gun manufacturers wanting to sell expensive guns to guys with more money than sense.
Self defense isn’t the issue. The 2nd amendment does not give you an absolute right to own any gun you want to. Guns are already restricted by type. An AWB doesn’t completely restrict your ability to keep and bear arms and therefore doesn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment as you still have access to reasonable alternatives.
Aside from wanting to own cool guns, does that push the argument against assault weapons back to the insurrection camp?
There’s the group of people who believe that part of the motivation behind the allowance of militia arms was to allow the possibility of armed revolution since that took place and allowed the Merica we have.
Regardless of original intent, if only handguns were legal in America, would that eliminate the cause/need to seek modifying the 2nd amendment or achieve the safety goals you want or you think society wants?
Man ever since they made the meth criminized its like I cant find it anywhere! Oh wait…
hot take: banning one of the possible tools for school schootings doesn’t solve school shootings.
taking depressed and deranged people’s guns is.
any gun can kill people.
Hoarding guns sounds like a pretty clear cut indicator of mental instability if you ask me.
What’s the difference between hoarding and collecting? Am I a hoarder or a collector if I have 7 cars? Am I a hoarder or a collector if I have 50+ computers?
Well… This presumes there is a difference. Maybe a collector is just a hoarder with enough money? Let’s try this: accumulating a stock of items that are priced based on historicity and rarity is collecting. Amassing a bunch of things that are mass produced and have no value beyond the intrinsic is hoarding.
No. There’s a clear line that someone crosses when they’re hoarding. The physical space is unsafe and the people typically have some deep trauma they are not working through well. GP used the term “hoarding” to describe “dangerous weapons collectors” in a slurry way.
GP used the term “hoarding” to describe “dangerous weapons collectors” in a slurry way.
I’m not sure what “a slurry way” is, but it doesn’t sound very kind.
I just mean “hoarding” in the way a dragon amasses gold. More than could serve any conceivable purpose.
The physical space is unsafe and the people typically have some deep trauma they are not working through well.
This is a fairly modern definition tied to a very particular mental illness popularized by reality tv programs. It’s not the dictionary definition of “hoarding”.
That seems like a convenient definition if one wants to okay possession of large numbers of guns. Thinking on it, collecting anything with no non-intrinsic value seems like obsessive behavior. Just because the obsession doesn’t express itself in physically hazardous ways doesn’t mean it’s healthy.
Mental health is largely about being functional. There are lots of people out there who are functional but unwell (and they are considered mentally healthy) until one day something pushes us over the brink. My son has bipolar and is able to function fairly well, but the incident that led to the diagnosis was a disaster. No one knew until he flipped in an incident that put him and everyone around him in danger. Fortunately guns weren’t involved.
The point of which is the accumulation of guns may very well be an indicator of a mental illness being kept in check and just waiting for the right trigger to turn into tragedy. And regardless of whether you agree or not, I think that’s what the OC was getting at: amassing a bunch of anything, specifically guns in this case, beyond what one can use is inherently an indicator of illness. I agree with that in concept although I think there is a lot of room for disagreement about what is an unhealthy number.
This isn’t a hot take. It’s a willfully ignorant take.
hot take: banning
one of the possible toolschemical weapons forschool schootingsuse in wars doesn’t solveschool shootingsglobal conflicts.Dumb take, also learn to spell shootings properly
that’s just a fucking strawman
If you are going to throw fancy words around, it’s more of a reductio ad absurdum.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a dumb take, because:
Shall not be infringed
Your Amendment does not supersede my right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This. When people talk about their rights they almost never mention anyone else who’s right are being infringed upon by them exercising them and what the priorities of the rights are…
It’s such a simple concept really. But some people and groups of people are just so selfish they would rather designate entire classes of population as less-than-humans to get around this.
Owning an AR15 does not take away someone else’s rights.
Good thing it’s an amendment and can be changed.
MA has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.
You don’t think there’s a difference between a weapon that can spray hundreds bullets in less than a minute vs. one that can’t?
Because any AR-15 with a bump stock can do that.
any gun can kill people.
This is an argument for banning all guns.
Fun: Cars, hamburgers, alcohol, COVID all killed more people in the last few years than guns, statistically speaking…
Bump stocks increase fire rate by sacrificing any ability to aim the gun with sights. An aimed 22 rifle can be more deadly at range than an AR with a bump stock. A stock AR is more effective at killing than a bump stock equipped AR in the vast majority of situations.
Basically, bump stocks are a kind of useless thing to focus on. The vast majority of gun owners prefer a stock AR over one with a bump stock. The real issue that should be focused on is capacity. Having to reload throws a big wrench in the rate of fire thing you are talking about.
