A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

@BizSuitStacy If you're going to bring up Heller:
[quote]Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.[/quote]

@OggggO Congratulations. Like so many other libs, you conveniently leave out the part of Scalia's opinion where he states that the 2nd Amendment [b]DOES[/b] protect arms that are in common use and aren't especially dangerous. The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in the US. And it's nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle. Roughly 75% of the 400 million legally owned firearms in the US are semi-automatic. That's about 300 million. Common enough for you, skippy? As for dangerous...per Dianne Feinstein's own data she posts to her website, so called "assault weapons" account for about 0.6% of all firearm homicides. Yet, handguns account for 90% per the FBI data. Weird how Heller v DC decision was about overturning the ban on handguns. Oops. You failed on both criteria.

Then you suddenly bring Miller into the conversation without any context. I can only assume you are referring to the SCOTUS case of Miller v USA from 1939. If you actually knew anything about that case, or anything about what you are talking about (and you clearly don't) you'd never bring up Miller. It's the dumbest of all liberal anti-gun talking points. You are simply mindlessly copying and pasting from 🐂💩 hoplophobic articles you find on the internet pretending you actually know something.

You're another leftist hack.

@BizSuitStacy Not especially dangerous? It is [i]the[/i] go-to weapon for mass shootings, because it's so good at inflicting large numbers of casualties in a short amount of time. I never said it wasn't common, nor did I even attempt to imply such, but it is most definitely dangerous. I don't really give a shit about handguns at the moment, they have literally nothing to do with the conversation at hand. You cited [i]Heller[/i], I pointed out you ignored a very important part of it, i.e. the right to own guns is not unlimited.

Regarding [i]Miller[/i], I didn't do a damn thing, that's straight from Scalia's opinion in [i]Heller[/i]. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with his ghost.

@OggggO [quote]It is the go-to weapon for mass shootings, because it's so good at inflicting large numbers of casualties in a short amount of time.[/quote]
Wrong again skippy, but congratulations on memorizing brain-dead liberal talking points! Handguns are used in the vast majority of your "mass shootings" - two thirds in fact per Mother Jones. Oops again.

So what makes an AR-15 unusually dangerous? Did you read the part about your so called "assault weapons" being used in 0.6% of the firearm homicides? Or did you miss that little detail? And did you read the part about the FBI's Uniform Crime Report where they show that 90% of all firearm homicides are committed with handguns? You realize in Scalia's majority opinion he was referring to artillery, grenades, etc. when he discussed unusually dangerous weapons? Ohhh...that's right...you didn't actually read it...you copied and pasted from the internet.

So let's step back for a moment.
Heller v DC addressed a handgun ban. The majority opinion was that the ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that they were protected by the 2A. The exception to 2A protection were weapons that are [u]uncommon or unusually dangerous.[/u] So the question remains, how can the firearm whose classification accounts for less than 1% of the firearm homicides be considered more dangerous than the classification of firearms that accounts 90% of the firearm homicides? We'll wait.

I don't have an issue with Miller v USA as Scalia used that case to support his majority opinion in Heller. I see gun grabbers refer to Miller v USA as an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It's not, of course. And if any of these fools bothered to read it, and understand it...they would realize it actually protects citizen's rights to own weaponry suitable for military use. Are you ready for every AR-15 owner to upgrade their lower receiver to select fire? That means turning them into machine guns!

Yeah...I didn't think so, skippy. But thanks for playing.