Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Two out of three ain't bad. "Personal Protection" is just a beneficial by-product of the 2nd, not a specific protected right. You can easily make the argument that SD is covered under the 9th, but it is not specifically included in the 2nd.
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jonnyc
Two out of three ain't bad. "Personal Protection" is just a beneficial by-product of the 2nd, not a specific protected right. You can easily make the argument that SD is covered under the 9th, but it is not specifically included in the 2nd.
Perhaps the 2nd doesn't spell it out. The Pa constitution makes it plain for the context of the times. Again, not for critter control.
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/k55y0g3x/b53ccd...4cc7e475e6.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
:-)
If there was a car on the market that was as popular as the AR15. There would be more people speeding, crashing, dying, and drunk driving those cars more then others.
It's called the Nissan Altima. Similar ownership demographics as the violent crime stats are populated by, too.
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
SCotUS 1937 US v. Miller:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
I don't care one wit what a gun looks like or how it functions as long as it works good enough to protect myself from ass hairs like Gov. Tom Wolf and Mayor Peduto.
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrBi11
SCotUS 1937 US v. Miller:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
Obviously the court has never had a close encounter with a Xenomorph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNnJOWcprvg
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Liberifle
It's called the Nissan Altima. Similar ownership demographics as the violent crime stats are populated by, too.
I would beg to differ that Civics more than Altimas.
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marinville
It bugs me when gun guys say things like: an AR15 is only cosmetically similar to an M16. It's the same exact firearm, except that it can't fire more than one bullet per trigger press. It is dishonest to say that an AR is "cosmetically similar to military guns, not in the way it operates."
I understand the desire to clarify that an AR is not a machine gun, but there are less deceptive ways to communicate that information.
It is also the wrong point to argue, since the founders would have intended us all to be capable of owning the legit full auto versions that our military have instead been allowed to monopolize.
The righteous argument is that all firearms are deadly and the point of the second amendment is that maintaining a free society necessitates entrusting citizens with potentially dangerous weapons, because the alternative is to be subjugated by folks with those weapons.
I won't argue with the "Militia' requirements, though the US Supreme Court blew that all off in the 1930s and 1940s.
The AR15 has all sorts of differences from the M16.
The selector switch on the AR15 lacks a groove to activate the "auto sear".
A pocket was created in the receiver of the AR15 to prevent the auto sear from properly aligning with the hammer and with the selector groove.
The hammer on the M16 contains a spur that the auto sear engages the hammer until the bolt is fully closed. This spur is missing on the AR15. Hammer timing is determined by milling the underside of the bolt carrier group. On the AR15 this milling is much further back than the M16. I suspect that the AR15 bolt carrier's mass differs from the M16, which disrupts the resonance of the system.
There is a third pin that spans the receiver on the M16. This is missing on the AR15. You can tell by inspection this difference between the M16 and AR15.
I believe that the trigger assembly in an AR15 will not play nice with M16 parts.
BATF&E regs require that any semi-automatic firearm sold must be "not simple to convert" to selective fire. I vaguely recall that it's at least two hours of work.
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrBi11
SCotUS 1937 US v. Miller:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
When a later NFA case, this one involving a machine gun, was sent to the Court they denied Certiori. Refused to hear it.
Re: Dr. John Lott on Pittsburgh's Proposed Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GeneCC
I won't argue with the "Militia' requirements, though the US Supreme Court blew that all off in the 1930s and 1940s.
The AR15 has all sorts of differences from the M16.
The selector switch on the AR15 lacks a groove to activate the "auto sear".
A pocket was created in the receiver of the AR15 to prevent the auto sear from properly aligning with the hammer and with the selector groove.
The hammer on the M16 contains a spur that the auto sear engages the hammer until the bolt is fully closed. This spur is missing on the AR15. Hammer timing is determined by milling the underside of the bolt carrier group. On the AR15 this milling is much further back than the M16. I suspect that the AR15 bolt carrier's mass differs from the M16, which disrupts the resonance of the system.
There is a third pin that spans the receiver on the M16. This is missing on the AR15. You can tell by inspection this difference between the M16 and AR15.
I believe that the trigger assembly in an AR15 will not play nice with M16 parts.
BATF&E regs require that any semi-automatic firearm sold must be "not simple to convert" to selective fire. I vaguely recall that it's at least two hours of work.
The globalists don't really care about all that, they want to ban all private ownership of guns, this will happen state by state, city by city, if they can't get it done any other way. They will ban one type of gun after the next, if they can't get an outright ban to take them all at once... They don't care if it takes a hundred years, some things take time... The "assault weapon" rhetoric coming form the left is a sham... M16 vs AR15 doesn't matter. They know that they are completely different, they know that the parts like barrel shrouds, pistol braces, bump stocks, law compliance parts, bayonet lugs, magazine capacities, etc... don't make a damn bit of difference and a shotgun or handgun is just as deadly... The shootings give them what they need to keep pushing their agenda and to get the leftist libtards all fired up marching in the streets... They want total civilian disarmament, open borders and a lot more, it's not just about guns... This isn't only happening in this country, they are pushing this crap everywhere, it's all connected.