7th Circuit - Assault Rifles Not Protected by the 2nd

So much bad information in this post.

A) hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

B) Many rifles have high velocity cartridges. The 5.56x45mm/.223 Remington does not have a particularly high velocity for a rifle round. It is similar to a .308 but less than something like a 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 WM, or any number of other magnum cartridges.

C) You cannot hit a feral hog anywhere with a rifle chambered in 5.56/.223 and kill them. Shot placement is still a thing. They are popular to hunt hogs because you can hunt hogs with any legal cartridge and weapon, the ammo is cheap, and they are effective enough against the thicker bone structure. There is also little concern about spoiling the meat due to fragmented milsurp ammo as most hogs are pests and just not good for eating. Hogs also tend to run in packs and can be fairly vicious, making the ability to shoot rapidly and have higher capacity beneficial.

 

I've seen you post before that the Second Amendment is to check tyranny. Should I count on the majority of non-hunting military type weapon gun owners to mobilize to check the 2025 Project and rise up in armed revolt against the Second Trump administration if it occurs, or do you think they will be more likely to support that tyranny and threaten resisters?

I know what I think.

 

The 2.23/5.56 causes destruction because it is a rifle round. Not because there is anything particularly nefarious or dangerous about the design of the cartridge itself or an AR-15 that fires it.

 

I'm not certain that matters. The AR-15 (and, again, I have one) has developed an identity and use over and above its lethality as a hunting weapon. It has become the de facto weapon of choice for mass shooters.

For the record, I am 1000% in favor disarming people who would shoot up schools, churches, concerts, malls, etc., even if that means giving up my own weapon. (For the record, I discounted a fee to obtain it well below its actual value and it is FAR safer in my locked gun safe than it was with the person I obtained it from.)

Sure mass shooters can go acquire something else, but hopefully at least a firearm with much smaller magazine capacities (if we can't prevent their purchase altogether), and maybe without their favored weapon and not being part of that "club" they'll be less inclined to go on a terror spree.

 

THE fact

 

I think many on both sides would do well to think about what an armed conflict within our borders would actually mean and whether or not that is a desirable outcome. The 2nd amendment is indeed intended to be a check on tyranny. Situations like being invaded by a foreign government or a government that starts engaging in genocide a la Hitler would be lines in the sand for many and an easy call. That said, anyone wishing to engage in armed conflict merely because they dislike short term political results should really do some soul searching.

 

Dodge.

That said, anyone wishing to engage in armed conflict merely because they dislike short term political results should really do some soul searching.

There are plenty of such people, responding to decades of political messaging that armed conflict in response to short term political results is not only Constitutionally permissible, but noble. That has been a consistent political message directed to them. And if those that promulgate or internalize that message have engaged in soul searching, they have found nothing for their search.

And if internal genocide, pace Hitler, is the trigger, it will be too late. Took power in 1933 and depending on how you define, the genocides started in late 1939 in Poland or on a larger systematic scale in 1942. For the 6-9 years before, a lot of laws and language that sound like the polling frontrunner (and more, to be sure), but it started with rhetoric.

And I maintain that the vast majority of the zealous military weapons type weapons owners will be the tip of the spear, not the resistance. They are no protection against tyranny, but rather a force multiplier for the tyrant

 

It just doesn't make any sense to me.
These folks come on here regularly trying to get the AR15 banned and on the thread cover page talking about Trump as Hitler and the brown shirts are coming. I would think those of you who are so scared of the potential looming Trump Presidency and the US devolving into Nazi Germany would be doing everything in your power to not only allow others to keep the arms but getting some of your own. Or perhaps it's just all hyperbole. Hmmm....

 

It’s a great question. In Heller, Scalia cites Miller arguing that 2a protects the use of any weapons “in common use at the time”, so the cutoffs are specific to their time and context. Using this rule, it would seem that the reason that possession of rocket launchers is currently not protected by the 2a is simply that few people happen to be possessing them at this moment.

 

Gun sales have been surging for years as I understand it. There's at least some reporting that newer gun owners are demographically more diverse and there's been an uptick in gun purchases by women, people of color, and more recently, in the Jewish community. Not sure if these new gun owners are buying AR-15 style weapons or if they're buying handguns or shotguns. I also don't know if they've been polled about AR-15 style firearms. I'm not sure it's necessarily hypocritical for someone to think banning AR-15 style guns makes sense but also not wanting to be at a disadvantage if everybody else is going to have them.

A nation rocked by mass shootings goes on an extended gun-buying run | CNN

 

I see what you are saying and people not wanting to be at a disadvantage. But most of the same folks have no problem putting the US at a disadvantage when it comes to climate change.
I think it is just in the DNA of most, who may feel mainstream but are really out of mainstream, to be very hypocritical. I fight it all the time in myself, and sometimes I lose.

 

Well, I think each of us is intellectually inconsistent or hypocritical on some level. I suppose the best we can do is try to be self aware and monitor it. One thing I think both sides tend to do, often subconsciously, is to conflate the thoughts or opinions of different sub-groups on the "other side" when in fact, those sub-groups may not be in total alignment in terms of their opinions or motivations.

 

Keep in mind that the tyrannical would have to have people to oppress, and thus would have to exercise some level of restraint. Additionally, an armed insurrection would not have to win, merely stalemate long enough to make continued conflict not worth it. Goat and rice farmers have done a pretty good job of withstanding the might of the US military in the past few decades, repeatedly.

 

There is minimal difference.

 

That is NOT the question. Do you honestly believe a citizenship should have no method to fight back against the tyrannical government?

 

Cost of doing business. If ( insert public place) gets shot up now and then c'est la vie. The die is cast on that issue.