• RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When your product’s only use is to commit mass murder and you advertise it as making you an invincible badass then yes.

    Your point is irrelevant. “Only a tiny fraction of the land mines I placed outside a school killed any children.”

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s the thing, that’s NOT the only use for the platform. If it were, it wouldn’t be the best selling rifle in the US.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171

      The primary reason for choosing one is weight.

      My grandfathers Remington 721 weighs 8.4 pounds (3.8kg), carries 4 rounds, and in .30-06 is arguably a stronger caliber than the .223 in an AR platform.

      My Henry .45-70, the caliber rated for all big game in North America (and jokingly rated by Marlin for T-Rex), weighs 8.1 pounds (3.67kg) and carries 4+1 rounds.

      Something like the Ruger AR556 weighs a relatively svelte 6.5 pounds (2.95kg) and comes stock with a 30 round capacity, making it easier to carry.

      I know, I know, 1.9 pounds (0.86kg) doesn’t SOUND like a lot, but it FEELS a lot heavier when you’re marching around the woods with a rifle strap digging into your shoulder.

      And being able to pick up something fast and use it in a home defense situation makes all the difference in the world.

      And make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is self defense.

      (2008)
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

      “Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”

      (2010)
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

      “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”

      (2016)
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/

      “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”

      (2022)
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/

      the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.

      • Amends1782
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sadly, no one will read this, those that do don’t give a shit. Thanks for leaving all this info anyway.

      • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The primary reason for choosing one is weight.

        It is not true that cutting food is the primary use of a funco brand model A kitchen knife

        The primary reason for choosing one is weight

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        A huge comment, but I fail to find what you consider other uses beside what you commented on.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t require any other use besides the desire for self defense. That’s the position of the Supreme Court.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the constitution means and they set the landscape of the current law of the land.

              Their opinions can change (abortion), but it takes generations to make that change.

              • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No it doesn’t. It just takes putting your political toadies in the seats. They just say whatever the fuck they want to say. It’s not an institution that means anything. Not any further than ‘they get to say whatever the fuck they want’ that is. Have you read their decisions? They’re barely even trying to pretend anymore. Why are you?

                • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s the 3rd equal part of government as defined by the US Constitution, so yes, it IS an institution just as much as the Legislative and Executive branches.

                  You can’t ignore a constitutionally mandated part of our government just because you don’t agree with them.

                  Now, it CAN change. We saw it change on abortion rights, all it takes is a concerted effort to appoint judges who feel the way you do over a 50 year period of time.

                  • RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t think you’re being very present in our conversation. You’re not following very well.

                    When did I say it wasn’t an institution? When did I say it wasn’t a branch of government?

                    all it takes is a concerted effort to appoint judges who feel the way you do over a 50 year period of time.

                    Oh there are much easier and faster ways to deal with them. Like for instance just ignoring them.