Online users
???: Message   

Richard, you are an ipstinking-eh RAH'thn "useful idiot".
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

11/11/2017, 17:17:37

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Assault weapons ban could have saved these 929 victims

By DoubleTree by Hilton

In the following nine mass shootings, there were 974 shooting victims (264 killed & 706 wounded) to wit:

Vegas: Oct. 1, 2017. Orlando: June 12, 2016. Blacksburg, Va.: April 16,
2007. Newtown, Conn.: Dec. 14, 2012. Sutherland Springs, Texas: Nov. 5,
2017. Killeen, Texas: Oct. 16, 1991. San Sedro, Calif.: July 19, 1984.
Edmond, Okla.: Aug. 20, 1986. San Bernardino, Calif.: Dec. 2, 2015.

If the shooter had not used an assault weapon, 929 of the victims probably would not have been killed or wounded.

do not know how congressional members opposed to banning assault
weapons can sleep at night. They prioritize reelection over the safety
of U.S. citizens, which includes Rep. Vern Buchanan.

I was driving
to Wakeland Elementary School to pick up grandchildren when I heard
about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, and I pulled off the road and
wept. That should have been the catalyst to ban assault weapons.

am not softhearted, but I know the purpose of certain weapons. I spent
10 years in the U.S. Army as a light weapons infantryman and surrendered
my assault weapon on discharge.

When I hunted, I was an NRA member but never used an assault weapon to hunt, as clips are restricted to 5 rounds when hunting.

Those who argue that such a ban would violate the Second Amendment need to read Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in DC vs. Heller, where he made it clear such a ban would not.

Richard McNulty


Once and for all, you can't ban what you erroneously and disingenuously deem "assault weapons". They are no such thing. They are semiautomatic firearms that cosmetically resemble real assault weapons (i.e. select-fire, full-auto capable firearms).

In 1939 the SCOTUS in U.S. v. Miller ruled that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. . . With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. . . [T]hese men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Translation: Arms "in common use" that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and/or are "any part of the ordinary military equipment" are within the ambit of Second Amendment protection.


Modified by TEEBONE at Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 21:20:38

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page