Another "assault weapon" hits the streets!

[mattskramer]

Eventually, if we allow the government to regulate this issue, this:

won't even be allowed anymore.

As long as we allow the government to take what they want, they'll never STOP. You give those bastards an inch, and they'll take a mile. And then more. And MORE.

Of course government will stop (or at lease swing in the opposite direction) if enough people vote to put the breaks on government. There are extremes on both ends. Compare it to taxation. If I remember history the highest tax bracket in Carter’s time was over 70%. Reagan conservatives came along and convinced people that this rate was too high. Government brought the top tier down.

There are probably more appropriate examples. I’m not too concerned about American government – thanks to our representative democracy. If we go too liberal, the American voters will vote for policies and representatives that will turn America toward a more conservative platform. If the general populace thinks that we are too conservative, liberals will be voted into power. It works almost like a pendulum. Though representative democracy is not a perfect political system (tyranny of the majority, money, etc.) I think that it is the best political system to date.

 

[mattskramer]

by all means.. ENJOY them! If you act irresponsibly then you will be dealt with. Who knows.. maybe some good ole Ted Nugent living will do you good and cler up that depression of yours!

Thanks. I know that I can count on you for a straight answer to a straight question. There is no ducking and dodging I can see from you. I’d like to hear from those others who think that the 2nd amendment needs no qualifier. Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony, be allowed to have fully functional hand grenades, bazookas, rocket-launchers, land lines, cannons, and a stash of 70 fully-automatic machine guns? It is a simple yes-no question.

If not, then shouldn’t the 2nd amendment be modified?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I’d like to hear from those others who think that the 2nd amendment needs no qualifier.

The 2nd is as qualified as it needs to be.

If not, then shouldn’t the 2nd amendment be modified?

No.

I thought I saw this in MK's profile -- anyone know who this is?

 

[mattskramer]

The 2nd is as qualified as it needs to be.


No.

I thought I saw this in MK's profile -- anyone know who this is?

Then how about answering the first of my 2-part question. To be consistent with your answer to the 2nd part, the answer would have to be yes. I’d just like to see you own up to it and actually answer it – Or do you suggest that the courts and congress can make exceptions (unconstitutional limits) to the 2nd amendment. Come on now. You can do it.

Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony, be allowed to have fully functional hand grenades, bazookas, rocket-launchers, land lines, cannons, and a stash of 70 fully-automatic machine guns? It is a simple yes-no question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only because you haven't paid any attention to any of my posts in the past.

But, Rerun, because you insist on asking the same question over and over and over and over, I will state my position one more time.:

My position is very clear:
-The 2nd covers any weapon that qualifies as 'arms'
-Unless your right to armns has been removed under due process, you have the right to arms. Period.

Got it?

 

[Ninja]

Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony, be allowed to have fully functional hand grenades, bazookas, rocket-launchers, land lines, cannons, and a stash of 70 fully-automatic machine guns? It is a simple yes-no question.

Before we address your silly and highly improbably scenario, perhaps you can tell us how bayonet lugs, collapsible buttstocks, threaded barrels and "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips increase the lethality of semiautomatic rifles. This is a real gun control debate - your question isn't. Machine guns have been banned (with very few exceptions) since 1934.

Come on now. You can do it.

 

[mattskramer]

Only because you haven't paid any attention to any of my posts in the past.

But, Rerun, because you insist on asking the same question over and over and over and over, I will state my position one more time.:

My position is very clear:
-The 2nd covers any weapon that qualifies as 'arms'
-Unless your right to armns has been removed under due process, you have the right to arms. Period.

Got it?

No. Artful dodger. You are still ducking and dodging. You weren’t even brave enough to copy my entire yes-no question. Such cowardice. I’ll post my question again and even edit it to incorporate your qualifiers.

Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony) (whose right to arms has been removed under due process), be allowed to have fully functional cannons (arms), and a stash of 70 fully automatic machine guns (arms)? It is a simple yes-no question.

Artful Dodger

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. Artful dodger.

Your poblem, Rerun, lies with your lack of reading comprehension, not my answer.

Should someone whose right to arms has been removed under due process be allowed to have arms?

No.

But then, anyone that understood my previous post already knew my answer to that.

 

[mattskramer]

Before we address your silly and highly improbably scenario, perhaps you can tell us how bayonet lugs, collapsible buttstocks, threaded barrels and "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips increase the lethality of semiautomatic rifles. This is a real gun control debate - your question isn't. Machine guns have been banned (with very few exceptions) since 1934.

Okay. Here is a preface followed by a straight answer to your question. I don’t think that I ever said that bayonet lugs, collapsible buttstocks, threaded barrels and "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips increase the lethality of semiautomatic rifles. If I said such a thing, please direct me to the post. Otherwise, please don’t waste my time with lame attempts to put words in my mouth. No. I do not think that such things increase the lethality of semiautomatic rifles.

Come on now. You can do it.

I did it.

All I’m saying it that it makes “common sense” to have limits. The point is not whether or not we draw a line but where to draw the line. I disagree with the attitude of those who think that the 2nd amendment is just fine the way it is. It you think about it logically and read it literally, there is no limit. Any limits on any other document would, therefore, be unconstitutional. Wow. Machine guns have been banned (with very few exceptions) since 1934! There you go. Isn’t that unconstitutional?!?

 

[mattskramer]

Your poblem, Rerun, lies with your lack of reading comprehension, not my answer.

Should someone whose right to arms has been removed under due process be allowed to have arms?

No.

But then, anyone that understood my previous post already knew my answer to that.

I’m talking about putting limits on the number or types of guns allowed for people who have not committed a felony yet.

Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony) (whose right to arms has been removed under due process), be allowed to have fully functional cannons (arms), and a stash of 70 fully automatic machine guns (arms)? It is a simple yes-no question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All I’m saying it that it makes “common sense” to have limits.

Tell us:
Concerning what weapons are protected by the 2nd:
What are those 'limits', why is the line drawn there, and how does that reconcile with the terminology of the 2nd amendment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I’m talking about putting limits on the number or types of guns allowed for people who have not committed a felony yet.

No. That's not what you asked.

And thus, I already answered your question.

 

[mattskramer]

Well. I answer directly all questions that are put to me when I have time and when I see them. (Yes-no questions, hypothetical questions, complex questions). You don’t see any ducking and dodging from me. It doesn’t take several repeats to get a reply from me. Just direct me to the post if I missed it and you get my answer- straight and concise as I can possible make it. You duck and dodge the simplest of questions better than did Clinton in the Monica mess. Bill would be proud. I have things to do. I’ll chat with you later.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well. I answer directly all questions that are put to me when I have time and when I see them.[/quote0

As did I. It just wasn't the answer you wanted.

So...
Concerning what weapons are protected by the 2nd:
What are those 'limits', why is the line drawn there, and how does that limit reconcile with the terminology of the 2nd amendment?

 

[mattskramer]

No. That's not what you asked.

And thus, I already answered your question.

Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony) (whose right to arms has been removed under due process), be allowed to have fully functional cannons (arms), and a stash of 70 (a large number) fully automatic machine guns (arms)(a powerful type of gun)? It is a simple yes-no question. Yes-no, yes-no yes-no?

I'm still waiting for a straight answer to it. Bye.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony) (whose right to arms has been removed under due process), be allowed to have fully functional cannons (arms), and a stash of 70 (a large number) fully automatic machine guns (arms)(a powerful type of gun)? It is a simple yes-no question. Yes-no, yes-no yes-no?

I'm still waiting for a straight answer to it. Bye.

Since you obviously have trouble understanding by answer...

Should someone whose right to arms has been removed under due process be allowed to have arms?
No.

Otherwise, the answer is yes.

So...
Concerning what weapons are protected by the 2nd:
What are those 'limits', why is the line drawn there, and how does that limit reconcile with the terminology of the 2nd amendment?

 

[jillian]

Before we address your silly and highly improbably scenario, perhaps you can tell us how bayonet lugs, collapsible buttstocks, threaded barrels and "conspicuously-protruding" pistol grips increase the lethality of semiautomatic rifles. This is a real gun control debate - your question isn't. Machine guns have been banned (with very few exceptions) since 1934.

Come on now. You can do it.

I'm kinda wondering, why are we discussing the possibility of a semi auto being banned? I thought that wasn't happening and that the AWB is history, as it were.

Or am I missing something?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm kinda wondering, why are we discussing the possibility of a semi auto being banned? I thought that wasn't happening and that the AWB is history, as it were.

Or am I missing something?

CA law still bans 'assault weapons'.
And, the rifle in the OP, a single-shot bolt-action rifle w/ no detachable magazine, is considered an 'assault weapon'.

 

[jillian]

CA law still bans 'assault weapons'.
And, the rifle in the OP, a single-shot bolt-action rifle w/ no detachable magazine, is considered an 'assault weapon'.

Oh ok. Thanks. But seems kind of silly. Good thing a dem didn't sign it into law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh ok. Thanks. But seems kind of silly. Good thing a dem didn't sign it into law.

Of course it is silly - its a gun ban.

And while a Dem didnt sign it into law, the Dems in the CA legislature passed it into law.