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

[ding]

Need I remind you of Dredd Scott.

...and your point is?

SCOTUS gets shit wrong all the time.

 

[Moonglow]

Has Ding discussed his ammo fanny pack yet?

 

[9thIDdoc]

You mistook an iconic handgun for a recoilless rifle. I'm sure that's a common mistake among military weapons experts.

Can't let go of that one, can ya? But stay with it if that's all ya got...

P.S. You obviously know nothing about the 106 spotter round.

I at least know what ammunition the 1911 uses and that it has never ever been chambered in .50cal.
I also happen to know that there is more than one type of .45cal. ammo and am always specific when talking about which ammo which gun shoots.

 

[ding]

Has Ding discussed his ammo fanny pack yet?

Here you go.

 

[jwoodie]

So you disagree with what the Supreme Court says? Does that mean abortion is wrong ?

Yes and yes. (See how easy that was?) In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court illegally amended the Constitution to add a "right of privacy" that appeared nowhere in that document. They then concocted a junk science theory about "trimesters" in a vain attempt to justify their usurpation of constitutional authority. Even dull-witted Sandra Day O'Connor recognized that this decision "was on a collision course with itself." (On the other hand, she justified racial quotas on the basis that they wouldn't be needed in the future!)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

A M1911 is .45 cal.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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?

Any added device that changes the firing rate should be banned period.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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?

Any added device that changes the firing rate should be banned period.

In Fla they are supposed to get 5 year extra but the Attys done use the law very often.

 

[pismoe]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

A M1911 is .45 cal.

------------------------------------------ just as comment , i have see a couple CUSTOM .50's Admiral .

 

[2aguy]

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?

Any added device that changes the firing rate should be banned period.

You mean like changing the bad, gritty factory trigger on an M&P 9mm? You mean like that, since a smoother trigger allows you to shoot faster....you mean like that? Because that is what they put into their bill after Vegas.....it doesn't change the semi auto status of the pistol , but it allows the shooter to pull the trigger faster......

 

[Moonglow]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

A M1911 is .45 cal.

Who wouldn't know that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No....the civilian would bring his privately owned weapon to militia duty....but that has no bearing on our discussion since the Right to bear arms is an individual Right, not connected to military service.

So "militia" duty has no bearing on the Second Amendment?

P.S. Are you happy to accept whatever "interpretation" SCOTUS comes up with?

Need I remind you of Dredd Scott.

False comparison fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

"There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

Nevertheless that is exactly how America came to be. And that is exactly what many of our forefathers advocated when necessary. In our system of checks and balances an armed populace is intended to be the final check on government. It should not be forgotten that the courts are a branch of government.

Absent a lawful, Constitutionally sanctioned means by which citizens might ‘take up arms’ against a duly elected government, an armed populace cannot serve as a ‘final check’ on that duly elected government.

In fact, an armed populace acting as a ‘final check’ on government runs counter to our Constitutional Republic and a republican form of government, where laws and policy are enacted by our elected representatives, not directly by the people – and thankfully so.

Because our Constitutional Republic wisely has no provision for National referenda or plebiscites, there would be no way to determine when a majority of the people agree to abandon both the political and judicial process and pursue an armed rebellion against the Federal government – and certainly no one would advocate that the government be violently ‘overthrown’ against the will of a majority of the people, that would only replace perceived tyranny with actual tyranny.

America came to be by an armed rebellion because the colonists were not afforded the political or legal means by which to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where that’s not the case today, rendering the notion of an armed populace acting as a ‘final check’ on government an invalid anachronism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you disagree with what the Supreme Court says? Does that mean abortion is wrong ?

Yes and yes. (See how easy that was?) In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court illegally amended the Constitution to add a "right of privacy" that appeared nowhere in that document. They then concocted a junk science theory about "trimesters" in a vain attempt to justify their usurpation of constitutional authority. Even dull-witted Sandra Day O'Connor recognized that this decision "was on a collision course with itself." (On the other hand, she justified racial quotas on the basis that they wouldn't be needed in the future!)

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Supreme Court decisions do not have the effect of ‘amending’ the Constitution – ‘illegally’ or otherwise.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Article VI of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of the case law the result of Supreme Court decisions.

Consequently, Roe v. Wade was correctly decided; the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, Roe reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy consistent with the 14th Amendment’s principle of substantive due process, prohibiting the states from interfering in citizens making personal, private decisions such as whether to have a child or not.

That those on the authoritarian right disagree with a Supreme Court decision because it doesn’t comport with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma doesn’t mean it was ‘wrongly decided.’

 

[ding]

No....the civilian would bring his privately owned weapon to militia duty....but that has no bearing on our discussion since the Right to bear arms is an individual Right, not connected to military service.

So "militia" duty has no bearing on the Second Amendment?

P.S. Are you happy to accept whatever "interpretation" SCOTUS comes up with?

Need I remind you of Dredd Scott.

False comparison fallacy.

Not all. It is proof of SCOTUS' fallibility.

 

[ding]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

A M1911 is .45 cal.

Who wouldn't know that?

You?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

"There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

Nevertheless that is exactly how America came to be. And that is exactly what many of our forefathers advocated when necessary. In our system of checks and balances an armed populace is intended to be the final check on government. It should not be forgotten that the courts are a branch of government.

Absent a lawful, Constitutionally sanctioned means by which citizens might ‘take up arms’ against a duly elected government, an armed populace cannot serve as a ‘final check’ on that duly elected government.

In fact, an armed populace acting as a ‘final check’ on government runs counter to our Constitutional Republic and a republican form of government, where laws and policy are enacted by our elected representatives, not directly by the people – and thankfully so.

Because our Constitutional Republic wisely has no provision for National referenda or plebiscites, there would be no way to determine when a majority of the people agree to abandon both the political and judicial process and pursue an armed rebellion against the Federal government – and certainly no one would advocate that the government be violently ‘overthrown’ against the will of a majority of the people, that would only replace perceived tyranny with actual tyranny.

America came to be by an armed rebellion because the colonists were not afforded the political or legal means by which to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where that’s not the case today, rendering the notion of an armed populace acting as a ‘final check’ on government an invalid anachronism.

The American Revolution was by no means legal and it is quite likely that a majority of colonists were not in favor of it.

In fact, an armed populace acting as a ‘final check’ on government runs counter to our Constitutional Republic and a republican form of government, where laws and policy are enacted by our elected representatives, not directly by the people – and thankfully so.

Beside the point. An armed populace acts as a check against government that has decided to no longer be a Constitutional Republic. Exactly why so many Americans are sworn to protect the Constitution; not the government.

America came to be by an armed rebellion because the colonists were not afforded the political or legal means by which to petition the government for a redress of grievances, where that’s not the case today, rendering the notion of an armed populace acting as a ‘final check’ on government an invalid anachronism

The colonists petitioned the king for redress and were denied. But it was the British attempt to confiscate weapons (gun control) that was the final spark that finally started the Revolution. There was no one single reason for the Rebellion. The purpose of the Constitution is to keep the government honest (or as honest as possible) and the 2nd Amendment was included to enforce it. Just that simple.

 

[jwoodie]

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Supreme Court decisions do not have the effect of ‘amending’ the Constitution – ‘illegally’ or otherwise.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Article VI of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of the case law the result of Supreme Court decisions.

Consequently, Roe v. Wade was correctly decided; the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, Roe reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy consistent with the 14th Amendment’s principle of substantive due process, prohibiting the states from interfering in citizens making personal, private decisions such as whether to have a child or not.

That those on the authoritarian right disagree with a Supreme Court decision because it doesn’t comport with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma doesn’t mean it was ‘wrongly decided.’

Care to justify Plessy v. Ferguson while you're at it?

 

[Auld Phart]

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Supreme Court decisions do not have the effect of ‘amending’ the Constitution – ‘illegally’ or otherwise.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Article VI of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of the case law the result of Supreme Court decisions.

Consequently, Roe v. Wade was correctly decided; the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, Roe reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy consistent with the 14th Amendment’s principle of substantive due process, prohibiting the states from interfering in citizens making personal, private decisions such as whether to have a child or not.

That those on the authoritarian right disagree with a Supreme Court decision because it doesn’t comport with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma doesn’t mean it was ‘wrongly decided.’

authoritarian 'right'?

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade (Published 2020)

The late Supreme Court justice believed the landmark ruling was too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks, explains Professor Mary Hartnett, co-author of Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biography

www.nytimes.com

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t really fond of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. She didn’t like how it was structured.

The ruling, she noted in a lecture at New York University in 1992, tried to do too much, too fast — it essentially made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop — leaving it open to fierce attacks."

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Supreme Court decisions do not have the effect of ‘amending’ the Constitution – ‘illegally’ or otherwise.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Article VI of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of the case law the result of Supreme Court decisions.

Consequently, Roe v. Wade was correctly decided; the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, Roe reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy consistent with the 14th Amendment’s principle of substantive due process, prohibiting the states from interfering in citizens making personal, private decisions such as whether to have a child or not.

That those on the authoritarian right disagree with a Supreme Court decision because it doesn’t comport with failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma doesn’t mean it was ‘wrongly decided.’

Wow! You quoted the exact reasons why Roe v. Wade was overturned without meaning to!