Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[Danger Mouse]

You must be a man for fine distinctions. Mind explaining why an AR15 is not an assault weapon? Not arguing, just seeking to understand.

"Assault rifle" is select fire, meaning capable of firing automatically. Ar15 is semi automatic only.

[Danger Mouse]

That's a bold statement do you have any actual evidence to support it...
lets look at aussies example







The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards,
but shit the USA is all okay they top all the charts







Merica
but don't worry Jason and TDL have a feeling they know better they have no evidence mind you........

Oh look. Gun related deaths were already declining BEFORE the change. Not to mention the change in definition of mass killing which skews the stats.

[husaberg]

"Assault rifle" is select fire, meaning capable of firing automatically. Ar15 is semi automatic only.

cool story
but as US law differs in these states no cigar
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, California.
But hey I am sure you can change their minds with the strength of your arguments.........

[husaberg]

Oh look. Gun related deaths were already declining BEFORE the change. Not to mention the change in definition of mass killing which skews the stats.

congratulations, for figuring that out, but they accelerated at a faster rate afterwards by almost 75% did you not read the text you quoted?

The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards.

it's 100 less people killed each year. if the population wasn't increasing. and guess what its higher in the states where more guns were handed back.
if you want to claim that as its only a 100 extra people getting shot and killed it's nothing. you must be pretty pathetic especially given that is about l1200 less people killed since the laws were changed.
What's funny is you claim it's significant that's its falling then try and say oh that same rate being doubled is insignificant.
That's a special kind of self-importance you place on playing with a gun you don't need.

[TheDemonLord]

If it is still in Legislation ... you can be still charged with it. Circumstances in each case may vary enough to prove some laws were broken.

But if it isn't enforceable by the Courts....

What part of the treaty was possibly breached ... ??? The various classes of guns did not exist when it was written. At the time the treaty was written ... they were simply confiscated. With NO payment. And the Government DID have THAT option instead of the buy-back. And we STILL have people that still have weapons of that class in their possession ... because they did not sell back ALL the (now illegal class of guns) they had.

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

As for the not-existing part - Deep Sea fishing and Radio Waves didn't exist (or weren't known to exist) but yet they are covered by the Treaty...

Can you seriously take the "As originally written/intended" ... AND still agree with the modern "Times have changed" principles ... then still claim to be consistent with your policies ... ?? A finger in both pies wont work.

I'm stating what the two interpretations are, I've stated I tend to side more on the originalist P.o.V. This isn't hard to follow.

A specific clarification of the 2nd amendment is required. Any legal phrase or term ... that open to speculation on it's actual (and legal) meaning and/or interpretation ... must be clarified.

Amendments to the Bill of rights have been made before ... and can be be still done again. If due process is followed ... and seen to be fair to the MAJORITY of the citizens and ensuring peace and harmony in the community ... it would be the biggest political coup in US political history.

But it probably wont be Trump pushing for the amendment.

And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....

At best you can only guess as to what intent they had over 200 years ago. Those that cite anything will do so ... if it favor's the point they're trying to make ... or their intentions ... and their beliefs.

Except they wrote a large number of treatises and letters expanding on what their intent was, so not really guesswork.

So ... you can't quote a specific case ... but still feel you've made a valid point. Even in a court of law ... more than that is required.

If you were observant, you'd know I'd already hinted at 2 cases: Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia

In Particular 2 Justices putting forth the opinion that Execution itself was Cruel and Unusual and therefore unconstitutional. The subsequent case affirmed that since the Death Penalty was not considered Cruel and Unusual when the 8th amendment was written, it cannot be judged as Cruel and Unusual by todays standards.

I personally don't actually give a flying fuck about the US constitution. It affects me as little ... as someone taking a piss in the Nevada desert.

Good on you for coming back though ... even with your piss (see what I did there) poor arguments ...

Except I've not brokered an Argument, I've pointed to what the Supreme Court says and simply reply "This is the correct interpretation, as per the Supreme Court".

You seek a different interpretation - and whilst I might agree with some of the points you raise about wording, practicality and the differences between now and then - what actually matters is how the Supreme Court interpret it - which is what I defer to.

[TheDemonLord]

congratulations, for figuring that out, but they accelerated at a faster rate afterwards by almost 75% did you not read the text you quoted?

3% to 5%

Not exactly earth shattering differences then, not like 3% to 20% or something that is statistically relevant for a dataset with such a low number of samples.

[Kickaha]

What about a chart showing the overall murder rate once the guns were banned, just because they're not using guns doesn't mean people aren't being killed

[Kickaha]

And curiously, neither have the Democrats, despite stating their desire to confiscate Firearms, isn't it funny - that none of them have outright stated it, almost like they know it would be political suicide and so try much more tangential and deceptive tactics....
.

You mean some Firearms

[pritch]

Meanwhile back on topic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T5BrmBVV5Q

[TheDemonLord]

You mean some Firearms

"Oh we just want to limit Handguns, they are used in most of the Gang Shootings"
"Well, no one needs an AR for home defence"
"Why would anyone need a Military grade 'Sniper Rifle'"
"Shotguns cause an unnecessarily large number of wounds"

No, I really don't mean 'some', I do mean all.

[sugilite:Me]

"Assault rifle" is select fire, meaning capable of firing automatically. Ar15 is semi automatic only.

Oh shit, your reply to my earlier quote was serious!
Be sure to tell the dead hedgehog on the road he was run over with a car using a manual gearbox, not an automatic one. I'm sure it will make a World of difference to the poor little guy

[Danger Mouse]

Oh shit, your reply to my earlier quote was serious!
Be sure to tell the dead hedgehog on the road he was run over with a car using a manual gearbox, not an automatic one. I'm sure it will make a World of difference to the poor little guy

hey while we are at it, a motorbike and a truck both have wheels. lets just call them cars

[jasonu]

Oh shit, your reply to my earlier quote was serious!
Be sure to tell the dead hedgehog on the road he was run over with a car using a manual gearbox, not an automatic one. I'm sure it will make a World of difference to the poor little guy

You've lived here, you should know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+a...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[sugilite:Me]

Liar.
1. Ar15 is not an "assault weapon".
2. They are not designed for killing people.

Stop lying.

OK, so now I know you post was not a piss take, it warrants further scrutiny. As mentioned below, the AR15 for a time was in fact designated as an assault rifle. It was developed for the military and used by the military in it's earlier AR-10 designation and later its AR-15 designation. So in regards to your point number 2, it was in fact designed to kill people. Simply disabling full auto hardly makes it much less effective at killing people - hence it's starring role in many, many mass killings.
Maybe you should hold your own posts to the same level of scrutiny you place upon others posts.

hey while we are at it, a motorbike and a truck both have wheels. lets just call them cars

My automatic gearbox vs a manual gearbox analogy relates to versions of the AR-15 coming in the military version with full auto vs civilian versions without full auto. Automatic vs manual if you like. I feel it is a bit silly having to explain this, but you know - Wooooosh and all that

You've lived here, you should know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+a...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Well, there is this in the wikipedia article you kindly linked to - "Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act in 1994 within the United States. This act expired in 2004.". So at least at one time they were classified as assault rifles.
Having said that, I'm clearly no expert in weaponry. My only exposure to guns outside of cops wearing them and people wandering around walmart using their open carry license to full effect is my father in law who hunts with a musket style rifle, to give the critters a chance as he puts it. As he kept our freezer full of venison, I'm not so sure the critters fared that well

[TheDemonLord]

Excuse me whilst I put on my favourite Pedant hat.

OK, so now I know you post was not a piss take, it warrants further scrutiny. As mentioned below, the AR15 for a time was in fact designated as an assault rifle. It was developed for the military and used by the military in it's earlier AR-10 designation and later its AR-15 designation. So in regards to your point number 2, it was in fact designed to kill people. Simply disabling full auto hardly makes it much less effective at killing people - hence it's starring role in many, many mass killings.
Maybe you should hold your own posts to the same level of scrutiny you place upon others posts.

Assault Rifle is a technical Term. The AR-15 that is commercially available has never been an Assault Rifle.
'Assault Weapon' is a Political Term, that can be applied to just about anything they want to ban.

Furthermore, the AR-10 wasn't developed for the Military, it was borne out of a concept of a lightweight survival rifle and a desire to make full-auto controllable with the full-power 7.62 NATO cartridge.

The US Trials to replace the M1 Garand (which lead to the adoption of the M14) had already begun, Armalites decision to submit their rifle to this process was an after-thought, not the main purpose.

To conclude, like most Arms inventions, the purpose is not to Kill people, but to solve a technical problem - in the case of the AR-10, it was to both reduce the weight of the Rifle and to keep the Recoil inline with the shoulder, to prevent a fulcrum being formed by a conventional buttstock resulting in full-auto fire making the Muzzle rise uncontrollably.

Well, there is this in the wikipedia article you kindly linked to - "Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act in 1994 within the United States. This act expired in 2004.". So at least at one time they were classified as assault rifles.
Having said that, I'm clearly no expert in weaponry. My only exposure to guns outside of cops wearing them and people wandering around walmart using their open carry license to full effect is my father in law who hunts with a musket style rifle, to give the critters a chance as he puts it. As he kept our freezer full of venison, I'm not so sure the critters fared that well

As above, Assault Weapon is not synonymous with Assault Rifle. One has a specific technical meaning, the other is a political term to associate things they don't like with the technical term 'Assault Rifle'.