Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by M14 Shooter, Jul 31, 2012.
He's right you have not countered any argument against your claim.
If challenged any laws would be striped away.
Or offered meaningful, explicit support for his own claims.
Legislating restraints on the possession of weapons or guns is pathetic, the key is a set of harsh laws that punish those using these weapons in the commission of a crime. The next thing you will hear is these pantie waste liberal pukes will be pushing for legislating the sale of knives in the hope of reducing stabbings? Can you legislate and prohibit a nut case or criminal from obtaining a weapon, yes, however a law and regulations has never been proven to deter a criminal or nut case from securing a weapon. So who do you really want to punish, a responsible citizen, or a criminal / nut case. New York City has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and I don't see the criminal element being deterred one bit. I for one think it's time to see these criminals fried, injected, or hung, and feel this will force criminals to pause a little before they pull out a gun and commit a crime.
And what type of weapon would be used in a militia?
Onlt because I didnt see this earlier... not like I have any thought that it will garner an honest response...
How do "assault weapons" not fit this description, as argued in the OP?
Why, excactly, was that the case?
False. This is a right-removed-by-due-process case and has nothing to do with the 2nd or the militia. Nothng inherently prohibits a felon from being in the militia.
False. Nothing in any of those cases supports this point.
One question tho: If you're right, why did the court grant Miller standing to invoke the 2nd in his defense?
False. Heller says nothing of the sort
False. Nothing in Heller says this.
Again, false. Nothing in Heller says this.
Given this and just about all your other posts, one of two things is clearly the case here:
-You have no idea what you're talking about
And there is that statement again: dangerous and unusual. I have not seen anyone here claim that states cannot regulate dangerous and unusual weapons. What the OP is talking about is assault weapon bans. Tell me, do you consider these bans constitutional because they fit that description? I cannot see for the life of me how an assault weapon (never really clearly defined) fits into the category of unusual. In fact, they are some of the most common types of weapons around. The bans fail the test given because they are not target at dangerous and unusual weapons. Typically, they are targeted at weapons that look scary TBH but that is beside the point. If I am off base here then please tell me why you believe the rulings support the bans and how those weapons fit into them.
The argument in the the OP -precludes- 'assault weapons' from being 'damgerous and unusual' weapons because of the SC rulings to that effect.
This is the elephant in the room that a certain someone keeps trying to dance around.
Separate names with a comma.