Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....

[Blues Man]

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

So you have no right to free speech, no freedom of religion, no protection from searches and seizures of your property, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment etc because those things are just written on a nice piece of paper right, Corky?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

So you have no right to free speech, no freedom of religion, no protection from searches and seizures of your property, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment etc because those things are just written on a nice piece of paper right, Corky?

I sure do. And even fruitcakes like you do as well. But not from the Bill of Rights. I get mine from the Constitution of the United States. All of it, not just part of it. I don't pick and choose what I will live by. I don't interpret it to suit my own views. I take the whole thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags.

Yes.. a term you made up that does not relate to the Heller decision in any discernible way.

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag.

An amazing no-seq you have there -- magazines are not weapons, and are certainly neither dangerous nor unusual, both of which must exist to satisfy the test.

And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Another dribble of unsupportable drivel -- none of that is supported by Heller.
You keep using this term when you know it is dishonest to do so - why do you need to lie to make a point?

Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals.

Wow.. you REALLY have no idea how this works.
-How does the USSC know if a lower court ruling disagrees with USSC jurisprudence if the USSC doesn't hear the case?
-Why aren't you aware of the fact cert denied in no way implies agreement with the lower ruling?

Okay, here we go again...

Yes.. you avoiding points you know you cannot address. As usual.

The Judge that wrote the ruling up is the one that coined the phrase, "The Heller Test"

This is a lie - he said "When the simple test of Heller is applied,", as in if a weapon is "in common use" for legal purposes and thus protected by the 2nd; your use of "Heller test" as applied to one magazine size against another is your dishonest fabrication, in toto.

When you can have an intelligent, honest discussion, let us know.

 

[Blues Man]

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

So you have no right to free speech, no freedom of religion, no protection from searches and seizures of your property, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment etc because those things are just written on a nice piece of paper right, Corky?

I sure do. And even fruitcakes like you do as well. But not from the Bill of Rights. I get mine from the Constitution of the United States. All of it, not just part of it. I don't pick and choose what I will live by. I don't interpret it to suit my own views. I take the whole thing.

Really? where in the Constitution does it say you have those rights?

Here let me help you , Corky

FAQ: Basic facts about the Bill of Rights - National Constitution Center

As a distinct historical document, drafted separately from the seven articles that form the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has its own fascinating story. But ever since the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights has also been an integral part of the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

So you have no right to free speech, no freedom of religion, no protection from searches and seizures of your property, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment etc because those things are just written on a nice piece of paper right, Corky?

I sure do. And even fruitcakes like you do as well. But not from the Bill of Rights. I get mine from the Constitution of the United States. All of it, not just part of it. I don't pick and choose what I will live by. I don't interpret it to suit my own views. I take the whole thing.

Really? where in the Constitution does it say you have those rights?

Here let me help you , Corky

FAQ: Basic facts about the Bill of Rights - National Constitution Center

As a distinct historical document, drafted separately from the seven articles that form the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has its own fascinating story. But ever since the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights has also been an integral part of the Constitution.

The Moon Bats are ignorant of a great many things; history, economics, biology, climate science, ethics and the Constitution.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

Do you have to work to be THIS STUPID?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags.

Yes.. a term you made up that does not relate to the Heller decision in any discernible way.

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag.

An amazing no-seq you have there -- magazines are not weapons, and are certainly neither dangerous nor unusual, both of which must exist to satisfy the test.

And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Another dribble of unsupportable drivel -- none of that is supported by Heller.
You keep using this term when you know it is dishonest to do so - why do you need to lie to make a point?

Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals.

Wow.. you REALLY have no idea how this works.
-How does the USSC know if a lower court ruling disagrees with USSC jurisprudence if the USSC doesn't hear the case?
-Why aren't you aware of the fact cert denied in no way implies agreement with the lower ruling?

Okay, here we go again...

Yes.. you avoiding points you know you cannot address. As usual.

The Judge that wrote the ruling up is the one that coined the phrase, "The Heller Test"

This is a lie - he said "When the simple test of Heller is applied,", as in if a weapon is "in common use" for legal purposes and thus protected by the 2nd; your use of "Heller test" as applied to one magazine size against another is your dishonest fabrication, in toto.

When you can have an intelligent, honest discussion, let us know.

So you just don't like the answer. Too bad. It's the only answer you are going to get because that's the only answer there is. You just want to make it up as you go. Go ahead, you just do that. But my bunch makes up the majority with the majority of the votes and the most influence and our laws are being adapted or already have been adapted. Plus, the courts are agreeing with us. When you get tired of winning maybe you can learn how to win.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags.

Yes.. a term you made up that does not relate to the Heller decision in any discernible way.

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag.

An amazing no-seq you have there -- magazines are not weapons, and are certainly neither dangerous nor unusual, both of which must exist to satisfy the test.

And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Another dribble of unsupportable drivel -- none of that is supported by Heller.
You keep using this term when you know it is dishonest to do so - why do you need to lie to make a point?

Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals.

Wow.. you REALLY have no idea how this works.
-How does the USSC know if a lower court ruling disagrees with USSC jurisprudence if the USSC doesn't hear the case?
-Why aren't you aware of the fact cert denied in no way implies agreement with the lower ruling?

Okay, here we go again...

Yes.. you avoiding points you know you cannot address. As usual.

The Judge that wrote the ruling up is the one that coined the phrase, "The Heller Test"

This is a lie - he said "When the simple test of Heller is applied,", as in if a weapon is "in common use" for legal purposes and thus protected by the 2nd; your use of "Heller test" as applied to one magazine size against another is your dishonest fabrication, in toto.

When you can have an intelligent, honest discussion, let us know.

So you just don't like the answer. Too bad. It's the only answer you are going to get because that's the only answer there is.

I see you aren't yet willing to have an intelligent and honest conversation on the subject.
Perhaps its because you are unable to do so? Hmm.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

So you have no right to free speech, no freedom of religion, no protection from searches and seizures of your property, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment etc because those things are just written on a nice piece of paper right, Corky?

I sure do. And even fruitcakes like you do as well. But not from the Bill of Rights. I get mine from the Constitution of the United States. All of it, not just part of it. I don't pick and choose what I will live by. I don't interpret it to suit my own views. I take the whole thing.

Really? where in the Constitution does it say you have those rights?

Here let me help you , Corky

FAQ: Basic facts about the Bill of Rights - National Constitution Center

As a distinct historical document, drafted separately from the seven articles that form the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has its own fascinating story. But ever since the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights has also been an integral part of the Constitution.

The bill of rights became part of the Constitution of the United States. Only part of the Constitution, not all of it. You keep waving that worthless document around like it actually means something. It doesn't. Now bring it up as part of the Constitution and you will have something.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

Do you have to work to be THIS STUPID?

Show me where the document called the bill of rights is a legal binding document? And I will show you where the Constitution is the legal binding document, the whole constitution, not just the first 10 amendments.

 

[daveman]

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

I said nothing about what was the safest action.
I merely pointed out that multiple gunshots are loud and intimidating, so a large capacity magazine has additional value other than killing lots of people.
Suppressing fire is a valid tactic.
Not necessarily recommending it, just that it does work, and requires a large capacity magazine.

it's just not practicle in a civilian situation. The more rounds that are fired the more chance an innocent will be harmed or killed.

You don't get to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

Do you mean that you get to make the decision to have your misses possibly hit and kill innocents? They don't get a say in it? Actually, they do. That's why the majority have spoken about limiting bullets in mags. And neither of us get a say in that. The People have spoken.

Considering you don't want people to be able to defend themselves as effectively as possible, your concern for innocent people rings very hollow.

I'd like to see your stats on the number of uninvolved people killed in shootouts. While you're at it, look up the number of people killed by criminals when the victims aren't allowed to defend themselves.

I guarantee one number is way bigger than the other -- and not the way you want.

 

[RealDave]

If this is true and accurate, the Bill of Rights lives in the worst state for Civil Rights........apparently, a permanent injunction was handed down against the 10 round magazine ban in California.......if this is true and accurate, sanity has ruled the day.....

BREAKING: NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against California's Mag Ban - The Truth About Guns

the actual decision......happy dance....

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.

2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.

DATED: March 29, 2019

They cite Caetano and Heller.......

3. Lethality is Not the Test Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence.

They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality
====

If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33

So, the slippery slope defense. brilliant.

Legal alcohol limit - end that too because before long, it will be zero?

 

[2aguy]

If this is true and accurate, the Bill of Rights lives in the worst state for Civil Rights........apparently, a permanent injunction was handed down against the 10 round magazine ban in California.......if this is true and accurate, sanity has ruled the day.....

BREAKING: NRA Legal Team Wins Permanent Injunction Against California's Mag Ban - The Truth About Guns

the actual decision......happy dance....

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.

2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.

DATED: March 29, 2019

They cite Caetano and Heller.......

3. Lethality is Not the Test Some say that the use of “large capacity magazines” increases the lethality of gun violence.

They point out that when large capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, more shots are fired, more people are wounded, and more wounds are fatal than in other mass shootings.31 That may or may not be true. Certainly, a gun when abused is lethal. A gun holding more than 10 rounds is lethal to more people than a gun holding less than 10 rounds, but it is not constitutionally decisive. Nothing in the Second Amendment makes lethality a factor to consider because a gun’s lethality, or dangerousness, is assumed.

The Second Amendment does not exist to protect the right to bear down pillows and foam baseball bats. It protects guns and every gun is dangerous. “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1031 (2016) (Alito, J. and Thomas, J., concurring); Maloney v. Singas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211546 *19 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2018) (striking down 1974 ban on possession of dangerous nunchaku in violation of the Second Amendment and quoting Caetano).

“[T]he relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” Id. California law presently permits the lethality of a gun with a 10-round magazine. In other words, a gun with an 11-round magazine or a 15-round magazine is apparently too lethal to be possessed by a law-abiding citizen. A gun with a 10-round magazine is not. Missing is a constitutionally-permissible standard for testing acceptable lethality. The Attorney General offers no objective standard. Heller sets out a commonality
====

If the “too lethal” standard is followed to its logical conclusion, the government may dictate in the future that a magazine of eight rounds is too lethal. And after that, it may dictate that a gun with a magazine holding three rounds is too lethal since a person usually fires only 2.2 rounds in self-defense. This stepped-down approach may continue32 until the time comes when government declares that only guns holding a single round are sufficiently lacking in lethality that they are both “safe” to possess and powerful enough to provide a means of self-defense.33

So, the slippery slope defense. brilliant.

Legal alcohol limit - end that too because before long, it will be zero?

We are already seeing it.....morons like you used to say only 10 bullets...now morons like you are saying no more than 5......

 

[daveman]

All this crap. Here are a couple of thoughts.

No, we are not coming for all your guns. Never going to happen. So come out from under that well defended bunker under your beds. And you others can stop with the wet dreams of joining in on the gun confiscation brigades.

As for common sense firearms regulations, get used to them. More and more states are adopting them. I won't try and justify either way on this one. It only suffices to say that the majority of the population is for common sense gun regulations. If you can't figure out what common sense gun regulations are, you are somewhat lacking in common sense.

How many laws are required before criminals start obeying them?

How many law abiding citizens died before the seat belt laws went into place? How many law abiding citizens were saved after the seat belt laws were finally universally accepted (give you a hint, it took about 10 years before they were universally accepted).

Just say you can't answer the question.

Here's another you won't answer: How many law-abiding citizens die every year because they're not allowed to carry their weapons?

You don't actually give a shit about victims of gun crime.

You can't answer that anymore than I can. You asked a question that can't be answered. Nice goalpost shift, fruitcake.

My mistake. I should have said you could answer, but you refuse to.

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 97.8% of attacks since 1950

Data is available in an Excel spreadsheet. The total number of people killed in mass public shootings 1998-2018 is 570.

570 people killed because they weren't allowed the possibility of self-defense. And this study looks only at mass shootings, using the FBI definition of "mass shooting". So the total number of defenseless people killed is greater, because shootings where the number of victims doesn't meet the FBI criteria aren't counted.

So, it seems I did indeed ask a question that can be answered.

Now...how many uninvolved people are killed in shootouts between legal gun owners and criminals, where the legal gun owners' rounds strike the uninvolved victims?

You seem to think there's a lot. Let's see some data. And I'm not doing this homework for you.

 

[daveman]

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

The majority of voters used to believe slavery was OK.

This is not a democracy. Rational people know that's a good thing.

And what is the basis of your claim that I'm a criminal?

 

[daveman]

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

It's only up to me as a Voter. I have one vote. And so far, the majority of the voters agree with what I am saying. I don't agree with everything I am saying. I am just saying what is legal. I don't have to agree with it all to follow the law. Does that mean that you are a criminal and operate outside of the rule of law? Using your own definitions, then you need to be arrested, tried, have your weapons confiscated for the good of the public and have your butt sent to prison for a very long time.

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Rights are innate. It takes government action to remove them.

Do I need to link the Schoolhouse Rock videos for you? Because you don't understand shit about America.

 

[daveman]

You are confused about the Constitution, aren't you? Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Did you ever learn that in school?

It doesn't make any difference what a majority of the voters say when it comes to the right and keep arms. There is a Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms and voters, politicians and judges cannot take that right away. That right shall not be infringed.

Just because a bunch of cowardly stupid Moon Bats decide to vote away my Constitutional rights doesn't mean they are acting within the law. That is like a mob violating the law.

If voters can take away the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us.

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

And let me tell you again

The basis of our system of government is that no one can give you rights or take them away as they are inherent in the individual

And I never mentioned any god

Once again, who determined that you get those rights? Did you just pick them out of thin air? Did some super powerful being give them to you? Or do we determine those rights by our votes.

What makes you so damned special.

You have the same rights, you dumb fuck.

 

[daveman]

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

So you have no right to free speech, no freedom of religion, no protection from searches and seizures of your property, no protection from cruel and unusual punishment etc because those things are just written on a nice piece of paper right, Corky?

I sure do. And even fruitcakes like you do as well. But not from the Bill of Rights. I get mine from the Constitution of the United States. All of it, not just part of it. I don't pick and choose what I will live by. I don't interpret it to suit my own views. I take the whole thing.

Really? where in the Constitution does it say you have those rights?

Here let me help you , Corky

FAQ: Basic facts about the Bill of Rights - National Constitution Center

As a distinct historical document, drafted separately from the seven articles that form the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights has its own fascinating story. But ever since the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights has also been an integral part of the Constitution.

The bill of rights became part of the Constitution of the United States. Only part of the Constitution, not all of it. You keep waving that worthless document around like it actually means something. It doesn't. Now bring it up as part of the Constitution and you will have something.

Our rights are innate, protected from government interference by the Constitution.

Period. End of story. I don't give a shit if you like it or not, as you plainly don't.

Stupid Commie. No mob rule for you.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well Corky I guess you don't understand the concept our entire government is based upon is that all rights belong to the individual and cannot be given or taken away by the government

I know the Constitution doesn't have pictures but maybe you can get the nanny who wipes your ass to read it to you

Let me ask this once again.


And exactly what gives you these gun rights? Is it the bill of rights (has no legal meaning), the Constitution (you leave out the 10th and the 14th amendment conveniently), the Courts (who have stated otherwise)? Or does God give you those rights? If it's God, wait until you are with Him then you can have all the guns you wish and you won't bother the rest of us

Is that a trick question Moon Bat?

The FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS you moron.

The Bill of Rights have no legal standing. It's just a nice piece of paper with some nice ideas scribble on it.

Do you have to work to be THIS STUPID?

Show me where the document called the bill of rights is a legal binding document? And I will show you where the Constitution is the legal binding document, the whole constitution, not just the first 10 amendments.

Are you through arguing with the voices in your head yet?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

I said nothing about what was the safest action.
I merely pointed out that multiple gunshots are loud and intimidating, so a large capacity magazine has additional value other than killing lots of people.
Suppressing fire is a valid tactic.
Not necessarily recommending it, just that it does work, and requires a large capacity magazine.

it's just not practicle in a civilian situation. The more rounds that are fired the more chance an innocent will be harmed or killed.

You don't get to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

Do you mean that you get to make the decision to have your misses possibly hit and kill innocents? They don't get a say in it? Actually, they do. That's why the majority have spoken about limiting bullets in mags. And neither of us get a say in that. The People have spoken.

Considering you don't want people to be able to defend themselves as effectively as possible, your concern for innocent people rings very hollow.

I'd like to see your stats on the number of uninvolved people killed in shootouts. While you're at it, look up the number of people killed by criminals when the victims aren't allowed to defend themselves.

I guarantee one number is way bigger than the other -- and not the way you want.

Effectively is in your mind. You need to reassess what normal and common means. Is it common to rig your house up like Home Alone? Do that and you won't need any firearms. Is it prudent to have bear traps hidden in the dark, dark back yard in case intruders come in that way? I guess you could justify that small children cutting through your back yard to get home might be considered an intruder. And since they have arms, they could be construed as an Armed Intruder.

Do you need a 30 rounds or 50 rounds or 100 rounds or 200 round mags or box mags to defend your home for intruders? Or you can have an M-2 50 cal MG with the Belt Ammo fed from a Panel Truck where you can run at least 1000 rounds before you need to do a barrel change. That'll stop those damned Avon Sales people cold.

For Jehovah Witness, just wire the doorbell to a car battery powered ignition coil but make sure you have standing water on the mat at all times.

Yes, these are all in excess and are in no way considered normal or common. The Courts finally came up with a limit. It's been hit and miss before. As entertaining as what I mentioned is to you, it's a friggin movie not real life. Not one dies in the movies.