Assault weapons: Questions for those that would ban them

[M14 Shooter]

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Hopefully they will see it now.

Their definition of "infringe" depends very greatly on the right in question - if they like that right, just about any restriction is an infringement; if they do not, then hardly anything qualifies.

Fact of the matter is, there's a well-established template for determining what qualifies as a constitutionally-acceptable restriction on the right to arms - one need only look at the right to free speech, and apply those principles.

 

[GHook93]

2nd Amendment doesn't allow you to carry guns into a court house or on a plane. It doens't allow children to own guns. I am very much pro-gun and I have a few: Springfield XDM 9mm (the gun in my nightstand in a lock box), Saiga 12 Shotgun (semi auto) and M1911A1 (Colt .45; best gift from my Uncle), I just get sick of the red herring argument of pointing to the constitution and I get sick of any arguments coming from PF Tinhead!

The first amendment doesn't have any exception either, but you can't scream fire in a burning building

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

or print obvious and knowlingly false information on a person (Freedom of the Press) etc

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

So take the preschool argument of its not in the constitution and shove it up your ass.

See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

2nd Amendment doesn't allow you to carry guns into a court house or on a plane.

These are tiime/place/manner restrictions, just like the 1st.

It doens't allow children to own guns.

Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyine has the right to vote.

I just get sick of the red herring argument of pointing to the constitution...

Pointing to the Constitution is perfectly valid, if you understand the basis for constitutional restrictions on rights.

 

[jillian]

Asked by the person who (falsely) claims to have a JD and then states that treason is the only crime mentioned in the constitution, and that can't tell the difference between strict/intermediate scrutiny, even when she has the definitions of each right in front of her.

hey... whatever makes you feel like you don't need a tweezer and a magnifying glass to see your teeny weeny shwinky...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now REALLY....

There's NO ONE that supported the 1994 AWB and/or would have it extended/reinstated?

Really?

With the number of people here that argue against them, I find that hard to believe.

Maybe you're just intimidated by the questions I asked, not really knowing what I mean?
If so, don't feel bad - that puts you in the same boat as Jillian.

But seriously - if you cannot address those questions, how can you support the ban?

 

[Ringel05]

Not to anyone's surprise, you haven't answered the questions.

You asked that supporters of the ban comment. I didn't support the ban.

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.

You know what happens when you assume, right?

You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

Why don't you man up with this one and admit you were wrong about Jillian instead of trying to cover your ass. You aren't a politician are you?

 

[MikeK]

The 1994 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would have seen it continued, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

The vast majority of anti-gun proponents and (especially) legislators know little to nothing about guns, are afraid of them, would not be inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, and are naively confident that law and order will always prevail in every corner of America with police always available to respond immediately to protect them. Few if any of them are aware that the Second Amendment makes absolutely no reference to hunting.

These people are viscerally responsive to terms like "assault weapon," which many of them believe, either consciously or pre-consciously, are weapons designed specifically for criminal purposes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Asked by the person who (falsely) claims to have a JD and then states that treason is the only crime mentioned in the constitution, and that can't tell the difference between strict/intermediate scrutiny, even when she has the definitions of each right in front of her.

hey... whatever makes you feel like you don't need a tweezer and a magnifying glass to see your teeny weeny shwinky...

Your juvenile ad homs do nothing to diminish the accuracy of my statement.
:shrug:

 

[M14 Shooter]

You asked that supporters of the ban comment. I didn't support the ban.

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.

You know what happens when you assume, right?

You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

Why don't you man up with this one and admit you were wrong about Jillian instead of trying to cover your ass. You aren't a politician are you?

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.

Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 1994 “assault weapon” ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would have seen it continued, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

The vast majority of anti-gun proponents and (especially) legislators know little to nothing about guns, are afraid of them, would not be inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, and are naively confident that law and order will always prevail in every corner of America with police always be available to respond immediately to protect them. Few if any of them are aware that the Second Amendment makes absolutely no reference to hunting.

These people are viscerally responsive to terms like "assault weapon," which many of them believe, either consciously or pre-consciously, are weapons designed specifically for criminal purposes.

All true.
This may explain the lack of legitimate response to the legitimate questions I asked.

 

[uscitizen]

Banning the bayonet mount seems a bit frivolous.

I don't think we need citizens to have grenade launchers, though.

Yeah I like to bayonette my deer a few times after I shoot it 30 times on full auto.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning the bayonet mount seems a bit frivolous.

I don't think we need citizens to have grenade launchers, though.

Yeah I like to bayonette my deer a few times after I shoot it 30 times on full auto.

Is this supposed to make some sort of legitimate point?
If so, what?

 

[California Girl]

The AWB was always stupidly written

Yep. It most certainly was.

 

[California Girl]

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.


You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

Why don't you man up with this one and admit you were wrong about Jillian instead of trying to cover your ass. You aren't a politician are you?

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.

Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

Actually, to make such an admission would be a sign of character. Because you absolutely are wrong about jillian. Lying to cover your ass makes you look petty and small minded.

Are you petty and small minded? Genuine question.

 

[California Girl]

Banning the bayonet mount seems a bit frivolous.

I don't think we need citizens to have grenade launchers, though.

Yeah I like to bayonette my deer a few times after I shoot it 30 times on full auto.

Is this supposed to make some sort of legitimate point?
If so, what?

If you missed the point, you really need to engage in some basic comprehension.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why don't you man up with this one and admit you were wrong about Jillian instead of trying to cover your ass. You aren't a politician are you?

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.
Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

Actually, to make such an admission would be a sign of character.

A poor character, as it would be a lie.

Because you absolutely are wrong about jillian.

About her lying about her education and her cedentials?
I am not.

Lying to cover your ass makes you look petty and small minded.

Yes, I agree, those words describe her rather well.

Now, since you did not support the AWB, and thus the questions in the OP do not apply to you, did you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion - or are you simply here to offer another meaningless defense of a fraud?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah I like to bayonette my deer a few times after I shoot it 30 times on full auto.

Is this supposed to make some sort of legitimate point?
If so, what?

If you missed the point, you really need to engage in some basic comprehension.

The point -I- take is that he has nothing constructive to add to the discussion and is merely re-issuing another old, tired, ignorant red herring.

Please feel free to illustrate my error.

 

[Ringel05]

I didn't say you did. I was simply waiting for you to specifically say you didn't support the ban.
Since you didn't support the ban, and the question/topic is for those that do/did, your posts here are even more meaningless than usual.


You mean like -your- assumptuion that I assumed you support the ban?

Why don't you man up with this one and admit you were wrong about Jillian instead of trying to cover your ass. You aren't a politician are you?

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.

Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

She did address it. Your perception of her is the issue here besides, not a very good dodge on your part.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why don't you man up with this one and admit you were wrong about Jillian instead of trying to cover your ass. You aren't a politician are you?

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.

Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

She did address it.

No... I meant for YOU address it, not her.

Your perception of her is the issue here...

No, the issue here was presented in the OP.
So far, not a single person has attempted to address the questions asked - not even those poeple that would have 'assault weapons" banned.

 

[TheBrain]

The first amendment doesn't have any exception either, but you can't scream fire in a burning building

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.

So take the preschool argument of its not in the constitution and shove it up your ass.

See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.