In response to:

The Complex Truth About the Second Amendment

Cappmann Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 11:56 AM
"An assault weapons ban? Volokh suspects this law would be upheld mainly because it's so ineffectual. Outlawing certain guns that might be used for self-defense is probably OK because many other virtually identical weapons would remain legal." This is one of the key objections of the pro-gun argument. If the weapons are virtually identical (which we've BEEN saying), then what is the purpose and benefit of banning them? That's like banning red cars while allowing the same model in other colors to be legal, because red cars tend to be the ones cops see speeding or running red lights, even though all the other colors do so as well.
Cappmann Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 12:09 PM
Just re-reading this statement - Are you saying a law would be upheld BECAUSE it's useless? Seriously?

The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs' Association warned President Barack...