Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't see how (one part of) the new NY gun law can be constitutional [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)25. Since most pro-gun control arguments center on the volume of fire
why would a bayonet, which is obviously more labor intensive and time-consuming than a semi-automatic weapon, require banning?
And why do 99.99% of a group get to infringe on the rights of a minority? I always thought the purpose of acknowledging something was a right was to inform the majority that they could not intrude without a compelling interest.
Is there a compelling interest? How many public rampages have involved bayonets?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't see how (one part of) the new NY gun law can be constitutional [View all]
cthulu2016
Jan 2013
OP
Government absolutely has a right to restrict what types of weapons are available
Hugabear
Jan 2013
#6
actually that's true - the wording say 'arms' NOT 'all and every type of arms'
samsingh
Jan 2013
#53
Of course, since it's so easily avoided (just remove the bayonet lug) it's hard to argue standing
Recursion
Jan 2013
#30
Don't really give a damn if it's unconstitutional if it saves lives... nt
Comrade_McKenzie
Jan 2013
#49