vern wrote:Rachel (Rhiannon) Parsons wrote: I'll end by asking the question, to vern and anyone else--how does disarming me (or any victim) make you safer?
No one, especially me, is asking to disarm anyone of sensible defense. Let's be clear, if someone wishes to ambush you with an automatic (yes I use that term because that is what it is or becomes in the matter we're talking about) there is no defense. Even if every citizen were armed with an automatic weapon, they would never get the chance to use it in most cases before mass carnage had already happened. Sure you can kill people, several people, with typical guns of what could logically be called upon for self-defense or sport, but you could not cause the mass killings with bursts of hundreds of rounds by pulling the trigger for a few seconds and spraying everyone in sight. And to call using an automatic weapon for sport is ludicrous. I've stated I'm a gun owner and would never deny anyone that Second Amendment right, but that does not extend to basically military grade weapons designed for mass killing and not self-defense other than in theaters of war.
Take care. Vern
None of the mass murders since 1972 (maybe since the '30's) have involved automatic weapons. Yes, often, rifles that mimic, in style, automatic weapons. (In the Isla Vista case, a Glock and a knife. Half were killed by stabbing.) In all but one of the mass murders in that time frame, a handgun could have taken out the shooter. And there are plenty of defenses, even cowering in a bathroom, hoping the shooter won't notice you. (Worked really well at the Pulse, if I recall.) The scenario that most closely resembles yours was the Las Vegas shooting, in which, unless people had their own AR-15's slung over their shoulders, they really wasn't a defense (well, except for an alert security force and a call for an armed posse once the shooting started). That involved a bump stock, not an automatic weapon. And yes, I think there is a case for banning or at least restricting bump stocks, including them under the FFA, as long as there isn't a general ban on accessories. They harm the firing pin of your gun, reduce your accuracy to almost the limiting case, so would "have no rational relationship to the training of the militia," even under the Founders interpretation of 'militia' (like everybody). True automatic weapons are severely limited, banned by several states, and to get one, you have to pass a background check, submit two photo id's and register your weapon (not to mention shell out the $10,000 purchase price, which may be doing more to limit their use than a ban). You then need a 'love letter' from the local CLEO. ("Vern's a good old boy; he deserves a machine gun for varmint hunting.")
Although, in general, arguments that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons are unsound (Yes, the 1st Amendment only applies to anything printed on a Gutenberg press--no. smh. I agree with Justice Gorsuch that, for instance, in the digital age, 4th Amendment rights should extend to electronic communication, how extensively for the whole Court to decide.), the Founders did make a distinction between weapons in common usage among the people ("the militia") and weapons used by the army. Cannons, for instance. You had no constitutional right to a cannon.
The AR-15 is the tomato of the issue. Under Heller v DC, weapons in "common usage" for self-defense, sports, and hunting were protected under Miller v the US, but "exotic" weapons, e.g., machine guns and assault weapons, weren't. (Miller, though, was about sawed off shotguns. Oh, well.) The trouble is, the AR-15 is both--20% of rile purchases are AR-15's and they are "assault," i.e., "scary," weapons. It's probably best to leave that up to legislatures, and ban the ones that are black but allow the ones that are pink (pink not being a scary color). That's what some States have decided to do, and SCOTUS has, so far, declined to speak about it. It is not w/o political peril, not because the NRA has a Kryptonian mind control device in Wayne's closet, but because "the people are the ultimate guardians of liberty," and I think most Americans understand, at a visceral level, the relationship between self-defense, defense of country, and the perrenial struggle against tyranny. Or maybe they don't won't benevolent and wise men like Trump and Sessons deciding what weapons they get to use. And let's be clear, that is what we are talking about with gun control at the federal level.
Be safe, Rachel
PS: Yes, there are people demanding to deprive ordinary citizens of self-defense.
