Comments by "Hugh Jorgan" (@HughJorgan1) on "New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern Announces Ban on Assault Weapons Following Christchurch Attack" video.

Franklin's quote is often misused. Firstly, he said it in the context of taxing citizens for defense spending. He was supporting government's right to legislate for collective security. Gun control is for the collective good so it's illogical to use his quote as you did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/11/liberty-safety-and-benjamin-franklin/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.720742e9684d
1
It's really only a matter of time until it happens here. A study conducted last year found 67% of Americans supported a ban on assault rifles (link below). . And people need to understand that such a move would be Constitutional. This is because the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a very important principle in multiple decisions on the 2nd and 4th Amendments: The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual. With respect to the 2nd, this principle recognizes the public's right to safety overrides an individual's right to own certain types of guns. The key legal precedent for a ban on assault weapons is the ban on sawed-off shot guns. It makes no sense we allow assault weapons yet ban sawed off shotguns. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686
1
@thepyrodude ..Please clarify where I'm wrong?
1
@thepyrodude ..That's the definition of semantics. Let's not go down that road. The point of my comment is a ban on assault rifles would be supported by the majority of Americans and would be Constitutional.
1
@corneredfox ..Whether we like it or not, SC decisions don't have to be unbiased or unanimous. And they certainly determine if laws are Constitutional. In other words, their decisions set the framework for laws and regulations vis a vis their Constitutionality. For example, they've determined it's Constitutional to ban certain types of guns. Unless they overturn this decision, it would be the legal precedent used to ban assault rifles.
1
@corneredfox ..Good points all around. It's refreshing when people use facts and logic, rather than misplaced anger/emotion, to discuss an issue. I agree the Miller decision could be debated. And kudos for noting the Heller decision. Both remain key SC precedents for gun regulations. They also provide the all-important interpretations of the 2nd. In my opinion, it's irrelevant how we define the SC's role or authority. The fact remains they set framework for laws and regulations and provide critical interpretations on Constitutional challenges. I also like when their decisions provide important principles as justification, such as the one I mentioned earlier. It's clear many in this comment section don't know or understand that the rights of the many to safety and security outweigh their individual rights. Particularly with respect to the 2nd and 4th amendments.
1
Apparently a large majority of Kiwis support the ban. Not unlike here. A study coducted last year found 67% of Americans supported a ban on assault rifles (link below). It's really only a matter of time until it happens. And people need to understand that such a move would be Constitutional. This is because the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a very important principle in multiple decisions on the 2nd and 4th Amendments: The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual. With respect to the 2nd, this principle recognizes the public's right to safety overrides an individual's right to own certain types of guns. The key legal precedent for a ban on assault weapons is the ban on sawed-off shot guns. It makes no sense we allow assault weapons yet ban sawed off shotguns. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686
1
@RaleighStoughton ..If you had guns that were deemed illegal it's your choice to break the law and risk the consequences or abide. It's really that simple.
1