CDZ Let's talk about bump-stocks, banana clips and other gun accessories

[badbob85037]

I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)

The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?

"shall not be infringed" doesn't say 'you can infringe it a little bit'. All gun laws on our books are against the Second Amendment and the Constitution most Americans no longer give a shit about. Some of these state laws violate federal laws, read the Dick Act of 1903. These states can't expect to have freedom when unable to defend it. Well they could call Block Watch and they will come and watch. A lot of stuff can be owned if you pay the tax on it, including machinegun stuff.

As far as mimic them, that is the American way. Capitalism at it's best.

 

[progressive hunter]

If you consider my OP to be a rant, so be it. But if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, you might want to specify the wording you object to. Is that too great a task for you to undertake?

BTW, I didn't "edit" your comment in any way. I quoted your last paragraph verbatim. Look it up.

I stated fact not opinion,,
the first 4 words of the 2nd A make that clear,,

by only stating the last part without the context of the first part of why I said it is out of context,,

 

[DudleySmith]

Gun laws were left to the states, not the Feds. Right wingers suddenly go all Federalist n stuff when it suits them, which is why laws are becoming pretty much a clusterfuck that only make lawyers rich and do nothing for the people or the country . Even in the 'wild wild West' of the 19th century even a town or a county could make restrictions on firearms to suit the locals and screw the Feds.

That is an historical fact, and only tards would say otherwise.

 

[progressive hunter]

Gun laws were left to the states, not the Feds. Right wingers suddenly go all Federalist n stuff when it suits them, which is why laws are becoming pretty much a clusterfuck that only make lawyers rich and do nothing for the people or the country .

if gun rights are left to the states that means all rights are left to the states,,

and thats not the case,,

a state cant change the 5th A and jail or execute a person without due process,,
a state cant change the 4th A and search a persons house wothout a warrant,,
same applies to all amendments 1-8

 

[DudleySmith]

if gun rights are left to the states that means all rights are left to the states,,

and thats not the case,,

a state cant change the 5th A and jail or execute a person without due process,,
a state cant change the 4th A and search a persons house wothout a warrant,,
same applies to all amendments 1-8

Since the SC appointees said so, i.e. political hacks whose 'rulings' change with the weather and the parties who appoint them. The fact is fr most of the 18th and 19th centuries what I said is what was, not some idiot shit from modern ideological fantasies and pandering. Law enforcement could even apply restrictions and ordinances to single streets in many western towns, and even to what color a person was.

There is no 'if' about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Since the SC appointees said so, i.e. political hacks whose 'rulings' change with the weather and the parties who appoint them. The fact is fr most of the 18th and 19th centuries what I said is what was, not some idiot shit from modern ideological fantasies and pandering.

its obvious they are wrong on this,,

its also why a liberal leaning judge should never be allowed on the courts,,
only constitutional conservatives,,

 

[Flash]

Until the next set of partisan political hacks get appointed to the seats on the SC.

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all Americans then the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[DudleySmith]

its obvious they are wrong on this,,

its also why a liberal leaning judge should never be allowed on the courts,,
only constitutional conservatives,,

I prefer original intenters over ideologues of either wingnut fantasies.

 

[progressive hunter]

I prefer original intenters over ideologues of either wingnut fantasies.

thats why I said constitutional conservatives,,

the original intent of the 2nd A was for the people to be as equally armed as any force they may need to defend against,,

 

[DudleySmith]

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all Americans then the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Has nothing to do with the historical record, and in most cases it is all based on whim anyway; I'm not happy about that, but that is the reality. Let Bernie Sanders appoint 7 SC justices and watch what happens then. lol

This is where Congress is supposed to provide checks and balances, but of course they long ago ceded that responsibility.

 

[progressive hunter]

Has nothing to do with the historical record, and in most cases it is all based on whim anyway; I'm not happy about that, but that is the reality. Let Bernie Sanders appoint 7 SC justices and watch what happens then. lol

This is where Congress is supposed to provide checks and balances, but of course they long ago ceded that responsibility.

civil war os what would happen,,

 

[DudleySmith]

civil war os what would happen,,

If anything was going to happen it would have happened in the 1980's. Nothing but noise then, nothing but noise now.

 

[progressive hunter]

If anything was going to happen it would have happened in the 1980's. Nothing but noise then, nothing but noise now.

we have far better weapons than we did in the 80s,,
and with all the states passing constitutional carry there have been some improvements,,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)

The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?

Where do I find this banana clip tree second amendment butter?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If anything was going to happen it would have happened in the 1980's. Nothing but noise then, nothing but noise now.

Anti rights fascist did push for a handgun ban.

 

[Flash]

Has nothing to do with the historical record, and in most cases it is all based on whim anyway; I'm not happy about that, but that is the reality. Let Bernie Sanders appoint 7 SC justices and watch what happens then. lol

This is where Congress is supposed to provide checks and balances, but of course they long ago ceded that responsibility.

If a state or local government can suspend free speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms then we really don't live in a Constitutional Republic, do we?

 

[DudleySmith]

If a state or local government can suspend free speech, freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms then we really don't live in a Constitutional Republic, do we?

Those were usually part of the states' Constitutions as well, so not a real point. It is a fact that states could establish a favored religious sect, and grant it the power to levy taxes, for one example. You could have freedom of religion and still be taxed by the state's favored sect whether it was your preferred sect or not. Freedom to bear arms and own weapons was the same, subjected to local whims.

The Constitution means whatever some majority of political appointees to the Courts say it means.

 

[DudleySmith]

we have far better weapons than we did in the 80s,,
and with all the states passing constitutional carry there have been some improvements,,

All recent fashion.

 

[badbob85037]

Banning bumpstocks is a feelz thing. It wont do crap. 95% of america didnt even know what they were until vegas..
You can make them out of a rubber band or a belt even

Anyone thinking one man using bump stocks shooting down hill at an angle of some where 45 degrees close to 400 yards and took out a battalion of personal I got a bridge to sell them. But when you see how many people believe what they were told happened on 9/11 most will believe anything. A good time for bridge salesmen.

 

[Curried Goats]

DudleySmith is right on this point. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow States to provide for their own internal security in a time before we had a standing army and they faced very real threats of native attacks and slave revolts.

The words being necessary for the security of a free State were written there with purpose.