Don Kilmer wrote: > What makes this decision absurd, is that if this case had been > adjudicated in 1890, well after the 2nd Amendment's actual incorporation > via the constitutional text of the 14th Amendment, the court would be > upholding a state ban on lever-action rifles. > > Sure, the case is about guns, but at its heart, it's about technology > that state actors believe to be "dangerous." > > Dangerous to whom is a question left to the student.
To that end, a thought experiment RE technology: Computers are now the primary way pedophiles get access to their victims (1), yet I have not heard anyone trying to push for limiting access to computers to reduce the number of victims by pedophiles, even using the "If it saves just one child" angle. Why? I assume it's because everyone knows it's the person behind the computer and that the vast majority of computer users don't use computers to harm children. I would think most would consider it illogical punishment to the vast majority of computer users who have committed no crime with their computer and would consider it a serious impingement on their Right to Free Speech/1 Amend Rights, even though owning a computer itself is not protected under the Constitution. If it was a poll, it would be telling. Those who chose #1, would be accused support pedos out there and a terrible person. Poll Qs I used for above: I will accept no limitation on my computer access even if it saved one child I'd be willing to have my access limited if I thought it would help I'd be willing to buy only government approved comps that strongly limited my access I'll do anything to help even if it meant no net access for everyone but the government Source via the FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/may/predators_051711 > > > This email may be protected by attorney/client communication. > Sent from Don Kilmer's iPad Pro. > > >> On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Will Brink <w...@brinkzone.com> wrote: >> >> >> I loath to sound so flippant, if it looks like an M16, it is to those >> intent on removing 2A Rights and the minor issue of facts irrelevant. >> The >> end justified the means in their view. So, perhaps a presentation of the >> facts to a court may sway them, I will not hold my breath. >> >> >> Henry Schaffer wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Will Brink <w...@brinkzone.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> From the Slate article: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "The state recognized that the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. >>>> Heller >>>> protects citizens’ right to keep handguns in the home. >>> >>> >>> >>>> But it argued that >>>> the firearms it had proscribed constituted “dangerous and unusual >>>> weapons,” which the Heller court said could be outlawed. Indeed, >>>> Maryland >>>> pointed out, the Heller court explicitly declares that especially >>>> dangerous weapons “that are most useful in military service—M-16 >>>> rifles and the like—may be banned.” >>>> >>> >>> Does the AR-15 fall into this category? M16 rifles are partially >>> banned since, as "machineguns", they are both subject to the NFA of >>> 1934 and any >>> manufactured after 1986 are really banned (for non-gov't ownership.) >>> Also, >>> they are clearly "useful in military service". >>> >>> The AR-15 is *not* a "machinegun", and I'm not aware that it has been >>> used in the US military service or in any other military service. >>> But it >>> does *look* a lot like the M16.d >>> >>> The AK-47 as generally found in the US also is not a "machinegun" and >>> again I'm not aware of any military use. What is confusing is that >>> the *military* (machinegun) version has the same name, in addition to >>> them looking alike. >>> >>> Are semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons "dangerous >>> and unusual"? It appears that there are over 2 1/2 million (maybe 4 >>> million) AR-15 rifles owned by people in the USA( >>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_ma >>> ny_a ssault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html) I cant find the US >>> ownership number for the AK-47, but I'll guess a larger number because >>> it is a less expensive gun and generally considered less desirable. >>> Add in other >>> semi-automatic rifles with replaceable magazines - and we're likely >>> well over 5 million - maybe approaching 10 million. >>> >>> Does the "unusual" label fit? >>> >>> >>> >>> Wha >>> > > -- Sincerely, Author and industry consultant, Will Brink @ www.BrinkZone.com Free articles, free ebook, and other stuff of interest to fitness enthusiasts, see my site at: http://www.brinkzone.com/ Remember, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Einstein _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
