when was the last time there were 58 people killed—or even 49–in one attack by a knife-wielding killer in England, or in any country for that matter.
Then tell us how banning guns designed for military use, that can fire hundreds of shots in a few minutes, will make violence in America worse.
One more fact for those of you who hold the minority view that the Second Amendment isn’t only about firearms for militias: if the signers of the Constitution believed that the Second Amendment granted the right of any American to bear arms, it would never have passed. Think about that for a few minutes and you’ll understand why. But you need to think in terms of realities of the late 1700s, not in terms of today.
The ruling noted that these weapons are commonly available in other states and the ban constitutes a violation of Californians’ Second Amendment rights.
Judge Benitez’ life is an epitome of the American Dream. Born in Havana, Cuba, he immigrated to the USA and earned his Associate’s Degree at the age of 21. Then graduated from SDSU before going to Western State University College of Law. He was appointed to the Federal Bench by George W Bush.
God Bless America
Seems like a classic example of states' rights vs. Federal rights. I'm guessing righties are all for the primacy of states' rights when it suits them.
Unfortunately, states have a history of denying protections promised by the Bill of Rights. California would be smart to drop the appeal, as a negative ruling from the Supreme Court, should it get there), might overturn gun bans in all states.
a stranglehold on California government for over a decade are arrogant to the point of stupidity, and rarely will see the big picture I have to agree it would be the SMART move, but don't hold your breath. Lol
Well, I not a constitutional lawyer, so I really don’t know the answer to this question. We all hear about “gun control” and the Second Amendment and the right to bear “arms” but it does seem as though there are regulations limiting the type of “arms” that are out there. Totally automatic weapons are prohibited, as are things such as RPGs, bazookas, and the like. So who is defining what “arms” are? For the record, even though I am considered a “rightie” I do favor a reasonable control of the type of weapons that are available to the general citizenry.
I think handguns and rifles (up to semi-automatic) fall under the term “commonly owned weapons”, which Judge Benitez used in his ruling.
which is somewhat apt: both can slice and dice people. The AR15 is much more efficient at that, however, as it’s what it was expressly designed to do. All of the people who’ve lost loved ones to mass murders committed with the AR15 will attest to that.
which is somewhat apt: both can slice and dice people. The AR15 is much more efficient at that, however, as it’s what it was expressly designed to do. All of the people who’ve lost loved ones to mass murders committed with the AR15 will attest to that.
Lost Son
mass murder.
There’s been limits placed on firearms for many years. Over 85 years ago Congress placed a super-high (for its time) tax on short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers. A few years later SCOTUS ruled that there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” A similar argument can (and has) been made for weapons like the AR15. In 1968 Congress banned banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose”. Tell me what the “sporting” purpose of a gun like the AR15 has, apart from hunting and killing humans. And as you may know, assault-style weapons like the AR15 were banned by Congress for 20 years.
So it’s not as if a lot of Americans, including Congress and SCOTUS, believe that the Second Amendment allows Americans to own weapons of any type, without reasonable restrictions.
mass murder.
There’s been limits placed on firearms for many years. Over 85 years ago Congress placed a super-high (for its time) tax on short-barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers. A few years later SCOTUS ruled that there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” A similar argument can (and has) been made for weapons like the AR15. In 1968 Congress banned banned importing guns that have “no sporting purpose”. Tell me what the “sporting” purpose of a gun like the AR15 has, apart from hunting and killing humans. And as you may know, assault-style weapons like the AR15 were banned by Congress for 20 years.
So it’s not as if a lot of Americans, including Congress and SCOTUS, believe that the Second Amendment allows Americans to own weapons of any type, without reasonable restrictions.
I mean there would be LOTS less death if those didn't exist and in the case of Automobiles then those should be regulated to electric self-driving models that are also electronically limited to never exceed posted speed limits?
Just checking
ALL the things he mentioned ARE regulated to one degree or another.
1) Automobiles are built to Federal safety standards. They must be registered with the state where they're driven and a driver needs to be over 18 and have a thing called a Driver's License.
2) Cigarettes are regulated, so is the sale of alcohol and, increasingly, pot.
ALL the things he mentioned ARE regulated to one degree or another.
1) Automobiles are built to Federal safety standards. They must be registered with the state where they're driven and a driver needs to be over 18 and have a thing called a Driver's License.
2) Cigarettes are regulated, so is the sale of alcohol and, increasingly, pot.
which just changed to an unregulated handgun state.
Keep up, Lost.
which just changed to an unregulated handgun state.
Keep up, Lost.
as in, you’ve just destroyed the long-held Republican doctrine that each state should have the right to enact laws different from other states.
Do you realize you’ve just advocated that all states need to allow purchase of weed because it’s allowed in other states, and also allow the purchase of abortion services equal to those of the least restrictive state?
Never try to have reasonable discourse with those who think that one can never have too many
guns or too much ammunition. After all, guns don't kill people; people kill people (plenty of those
deaths are suicides). Why create laws that make killing oneself or another person more difficult.
Interesting that we have more deaths by gun than any other Nation with our proportionate
wealth.
was asked for his opinion of Judge Benitez's comparison of an AR-15 to a Swiss Army Knife. Bratton said:
"He's an idiot! He's out of his mind!"
I wonder if Lost-His-Mind considers 40+ years cop Bill Bratton to be an "anti-gunner?
Treat it like cigarettes. Make it hard as fuck to registration it, then have them wait 1 year...do gun suppression.
Back in the day, frontline troops were issued the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle and non-frontline troops were issued 1911 pistols. But it became evident that no one could hit anything with pistols, so non-frontline troops were then issued a a smaller rifle known as the semi-automatic M1 Carbine.
.
This was the precursor of the M16/AR-15 (AR does not stand for assault rife, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the designer of that platform.) A lighter shorter rifle than previous versions, but more accurate to shoot than a pistol.
.
So the AR-15 is therefore easier for anyone to shoot accurately than a pistol, and therefore a better defensive weapon. The smaller lighter factor eventually overrode other benefits of longer heavier weapons and the M16/AR-15 platform became the main weapon issued to all troops.
.
This is the reason is it also preferred as a civilian self-defense weapon and is the most popular weapon platform ever. It is a compromise of several factors that hits the sweet spot of civilian home defense. Even in your house you are better off holding and AR-15 than a pistol. Even shooting from the hip your aim is going to be much better.
.
Ironically, the M1 Carbine, a semi-automatic weapon, is legal in California and up until this ruling, the AR-15, of similar killing capability, was not -- because reasons.
Back in the day, frontline troops were issued the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle and non-frontline troops were issued 1911 pistols. But it became evident that no one could hit anything with pistols, so non-frontline troops were then issued a a smaller rifle known as the semi-automatic M1 Carbine.
.
This was the precursor of the M16/AR-15 (AR does not stand for assault rife, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the designer of that platform.) A lighter shorter rifle than previous versions, but more accurate to shoot than a pistol.
.
So the AR-15 is therefore easier for anyone to shoot accurately than a pistol, and therefore a better defensive weapon. The smaller lighter factor eventually overrode other benefits of longer heavier weapons and the M16/AR-15 platform became the main weapon issued to all troops.
.
This is the reason is it also preferred as a civilian self-defense weapon and is the most popular weapon platform ever. It is a compromise of several factors that hits the sweet spot of civilian home defense. Even in your house you are better off holding and AR-15 than a pistol. Even shooting from the hip your aim is going to be much better.
.
Ironically, the M1 Carbine, a semi-automatic weapon, is legal in California and up until this ruling, the AR-15, of similar killing capability, was not -- because reasons.
Also, a "Clip" is a device designed to hold 8 rounds of 30.06 ammunition for the M1 Grand rifle. A box magazine or simply "magazine" is what almost every modern automatic (or semi-automatic) rifle and pistol uses today.
Steve Trevors endless points over these weapons of mass destruction should be gone for the greater safety are the opinions of many on the left! OH MY GOD take away these death-dealing devices and all the problems will go away. I remember Samantha Bee stating "it's the guns" meaning that the guns were killing people. OK, my guns have never killed anyone. Let's just say draconin legislation comes down and we disarm the American public at large... let's just say. and if we did this Steveo do you think violence will be stemmed?
In places like England where they have taken the majority of firearms away Knife attacks have gone through the roof. This is an article from 2015 and things have just gotten worse since then. so the bottom line is taking guns away just trades the type of violence and in this case, makes it worse.
when was the last time there were 58 people killed—or even 49–in one attack by a knife-wielding killer in England, or in any country for that matter.
Then tell us how banning guns designed for military use, that can fire hundreds of shots in a few minutes, will make violence in America worse.
One more fact for those of you who hold the minority view that the Second Amendment isn’t only about firearms for militias: if the signers of the Constitution believed that the Second Amendment granted the right of any American to bear arms, it would never have passed. Think about that for a few minutes and you’ll understand why. But you need to think in terms of realities of the late 1700s, not in terms of today.
Happy Land Arson Fire of 1990 in NYC killed 87. A man (Julio González) and a match.
There are approx 15,000 firearm homicides (not including suicides) in the USA per year. There are approx 3000 arson deaths per year in the USA. There is always a way to kill a lot of people if you are so motivated.
when was the last time there were 58 people killed—or even 49–in one attack by a knife-wielding killer in England, or in any country for that matter.
Then tell us how banning guns designed for military use, that can fire hundreds of shots in a few minutes, will make violence in America worse.
One more fact for those of you who hold the minority view that the Second Amendment isn’t only about firearms for militias: if the signers of the Constitution believed that the Second Amendment granted the right of any American to bear arms, it would never have passed. Think about that for a few minutes and you’ll understand why. But you need to think in terms of realities of the late 1700s, not in terms of today.
Violence in America has been made much worse by left-wing politics Nuff said there.
And where did you get your History Degree? in the late 1700s everyone was potentially going to be a militia member as was the belief at the time.
Of course, you had no answer for my question, so you tried to divert.
The death rate from guns in the US is 12.21 per 100k per year. In the UK it’s 0.23.
Another interesting fact: in 2019 there were fewer deaths by knife attack in all of London than were killed in just TWO assault-rifle attacks in the US.
As for history… what else was going on in the new USA in the late 1700s? And what kind of citizen would have never been allowed to own a gun by many states at that time? And thus those states would never have ratified a Constitution that supported that kind of arms-bearing.