Heston first gave that speech in 2000, just months after the Columbine High School massacre. The gun he held in that first speech was a replica of a flintlock long-rifle. Any floozy flaunting a flintlock can keep it.
Printable View
Heston first gave that speech in 2000, just months after the Columbine High School massacre. The gun he held in that first speech was a replica of a flintlock long-rifle. Any floozy flaunting a flintlock can keep it.
Wound From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly thing to See’: By Gina Kolata and C.J.Chivers in the March 4, 2018 NYT
https://nyti.ms/2CY5mDi
The destructive power of modern weapons is something that needs to be factored in to the conversation, as the link Trish has provided shows. It is not just the guns, but the bullets they fire, their velocity, their destructive impact. It also begs the question -what is self-defence? Was it in Bowling for Columbine that Heston, when questioned about the misery and death caused to innocent people by guns, rose from his seat in silence and walked out? His reputation shattered.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This is how Liberals on this board are behaving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xCYv6MeC8
Really? Who? Seems to me it's the conservatives here who are posting their messages in large red fonts (see post #66), or posting videos with gun enthusiasts wearing T’s that say “Crush Everything” and warning us of the slippery slope leading to the end of Democracy and the 2nd Amendment. Or other videos about how the rest of us will have to pry your rifles from your cold dead hands. If there really were such a thing, you guys would get the academy award in the category of crisis acting.
:razz: Oh no, Lizard man strikes again. I'm gonna thumb down all the posts and show them that semi-automatic weapons with bullets that rip through people at 2000 mph are really good. As the other dude said, they're valuable because you can become an instructor which provides the clear utility of allowing someone to instruct other people on how to shoot these useless, life-destroying, military weapons for rejects.
Silencers? Why not? Tons of law-abiding uses for them. When you want to kill someone in self-defense but don't want to wake the neighbors they're perfect!
Florida has passed new laws on guns...and the NRA sues...I wonder if they are about to go on a losing streak having had a good run for so many years?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43352078
nra rules...its true..one should join nra as soon as possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
2000 is ok but wht about 4000 or 6000Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Thank you. I didn't know about any of this. The laws look very reasonable and from what I've seen from the article the NRA doesn't have much chance of succeeding in court based on what Scalia has said. He said in Heller that nothing in his opinion should be interpreted to mean assault weapon bans are unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to own the type of ordinary weapon people use for self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.
For example let's say in order to work somewhere safely it required a person to be 170 pounds and at least 5 foot 8. If instead of just mandating that requirement, they say that women cannot operate machinery because only 10% of women meet those requirements. In equal protection terms the classification would be over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because some women are that height and weight and it's under-inclusive because some men aren't.
The NRA is claiming that the age restriction discriminates against adults 18-21. But age has always been a proxy for maturity and they certainly would not want the government to engage in the sort of competency testing that would get more directly to the issue. It's also true that while older people can face invidious discrimination that underestimates their competency it hasn't been much of a problem with younger individuals. As I sort of indicated, equal protection addresses the use of classifications that aren't effective for legislating, but it also looks for an element of discrimination. The age restriction is unfortunately the best proxy we have for most dangerous activities short of stringent licensing and individualized competency testing, and it's not what they call a "suspect classification" where you are somewhat suspicious of the intent behind the classification.
The bigger point behind this is to ask, what does this say about the NRA? Things we already know but that their aim is not to protect the right to own guns for self-defense, but a militia culture that is toxic to our country. It also indicates they don't know how to pick their battles, because unless there is something I'm not seeing here, they're going to lose. They are worried about the laws but as laws determine norms, and as Scalia's opinion kind of uses norms as a benchmark for laws, they don't want this to get away from them.