"Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Killer

she was hyperventilating about the "Founding Fathers" - neither one of you obviously din't know what they really said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended and how it is to be applied to technological advances in weapons available in the 21st century. The Founders were bright guys but they were not able to divine the future (e.g. - the "Founding Fathers" said for purposes of the census slaves should count as 3/5 of a person - times have changed)

Since i know you have read the opinion of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a ban on the ownership of assault rifles and 30 round clips that the Supreme Court did not elect to review, please walk me through your basis for disagreeing with the rationale of the majority opinion that by application of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller regulation of firearms is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny in order to determine whether such regulation runs afoul of the Second Amendment and that the right to possess any firearm is not absolute

As with the First Amendment, the level of scrutiny applicable under the Second Amendment surely “depends on the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right.”...

We are not aware of evidence that prohibitions on either semi-automatic rifles or large-capacity magazines are longstanding and thereby deserving of a presumption of validity.* For the court to determine whether these prohibitions are constitutional, therefore, we first must ask whether they impinge upon the right protected by the Second Amendment. That is, prohibiting certain arms might not meaningfully affect “individual self-defense, [which] is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599). Of course, the Court also said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for other “lawful purposes,” such as hunting, but self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” protected, Heller, 554 U.S. at 630....

As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun. See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, 185 (1995) (revolvers and semi-automatic pistols are together used almost 80% of the time in incidents of self-defense with a gun); Dep’t of Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles 38 (1998) (semi-automatic assault rifles studied are “not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”). Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns). Accordingly, we believe intermediate rather than strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here is the link to the decision to the extent you want to cite to specific points in the decision to support your views

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

[torpedoshell31]

If Atlanta Dan and ricardismo want to give up their 2nd amendment right, first amendment right or any other for that matter, they are free to do so. However, don't try and use government force to take away the Bill of Rights for the rest of us who actually still believe in the constitution. Their just not understanding the reason for the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizen from the greatest threat they can face- an out of control, oppressive government.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by torpedoshell31

If Atlanta Dan and ricardismo want to give up their 2nd amendment right, first amendment right or any other for that matter, they are free to do so. However, don't try and use government force to take away the Bill of Rights for the rest of us who actually still believe in the constitution. Their just not understanding the reason for the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizen from the greatest threat they can face- an out of control, oppressive government.

You believe in your version of the Constitution and I believe in my version - your version apparently maintains that the right to bear any weapon cannot be regulated - I disagree - spare me the sanctimonious crap that you have cornered the market on what the Constitution means and that anyone who disagrees with you does not "understand" constitutional law as well as you do

[Vis]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

You believe in your version of the Constitution and I believe in my version - your version apparently maintains that the right to bear any weapon cannot be regulated - I disagree - spare me the sanctimonious crap that you have cornered the market on what the Constitution means and that anyone who disagrees with you does not "understand" constitutional law as well as you do

They will argue medicine with a doctor as well

[torpedoshell31]

Again, if you choose not to own a gun, or if you have one and want to turn in it to the government, that's fine, you are free to do so. Just don't force us who want to live in freedom instead of tyranny to do the same.

[Quackjack]

Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by Quackjack

Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?

Sure, if I choose to.

Thats not your choice to make for others.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by MACH1

Sure, if I choose to.

Thats not your choice to make for others.

Really?

You cannot choose to drive 90 miles an hour or while legally drunk although you can drive and drive after having a drink

You cannot keep a pet lion in your backyard but you can have a dog

You cannot choose not to pay taxes on your earnings

You cannot choose to possess child porn

There are lots of activities in which you cannot elect your "right" as a free man to choose

[Killer]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended

You still don't get it

Rights belong to individuals not groups. Using her logic you could justify any violation of our Constitutional rights for the "greater good's" safety.

The rights of "the few" is exactly what our Constitution was written for.


you take your Feinsteins and I'll raise you a Thomas Jefferson



of course nanny state loyalists LIKE being slaves, they LIKE a government telling them what's good for them

yessa massa, wha ever you thinks best massa, yessa massa


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.

[Vis]

Originally Posted by Killer

You still don't get it

Rights belong to individuals not groups. Using her logic you could justify any violation of our Constitutional rights for the "greater good's" safety.

The rights of "the few" is exactly what our Constitution was written for.


you take your Feinsteins and I'll raise you a Thomas Jefferson



of course nanny state loyalists LIKE being slaves, they LIKE a government telling them what's good for them

yessa massa, wha ever you thinks best massa, yessa massa


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.

Keep the racism to yourself.

Dan gets it. He understands the rights and the limits. You know half the story and seem to apply absolutism to only the 2nd amendment. It's not your fault you lack the education on the subject but it is your fault you don't admit that you do.