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

[Resnic]

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?

Here is the problem.

You, I don't mean this is an insult, are focused on the wrong side of the problem.

40 years ago we didn't have problems with mass shootings and all of this other nonsense. And then we had less gun control.

So what's changed? Our society has. So instead of trying to create more gun laws we should be focused on not banning guns but banning criminals, dopeheads and crazy people.

You can ban every single gun in America but the people who want to go out and hurt others will still be here. But if you ban those people so to speak then you don't need gun control.

I want a society that is safe because we don't allow others who want to hurt people to be a part of it. And we used to have that for the most part.

Gun control is not any kind of answer. Criminal, dopehead and crazy control is the answer.

 

[Delldude]

And the size of a magazine has nothing to do with anything.

Not what she said.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

the 2nd A is specific to weapons of war,,

I guess you didnt know all arms are manufactured and owned by private citizens,,
then the government buys them from them,,

so although your opinion means something to you, in the end thats it,, an opinion,,

 

[Rigby5]

Yet I read in my paper this a.m. that the Maine legislature thinks it is too "complicated" an issue to consider with only three weeks left in the session.
Not even this will be considered.

The reason the issue of "bump stocks" is "too complicated" is that it is not really a device.
Bump stocks came about simply as a way of holding any gun so that the recoil caused your finger to keep repeatedly pulling the trigger.
But in order to accomplish that, you have to not hold onto the gun tightly.
And putting a spring in the stock makes that a little easier.
But it is still sort of just a weird and totally inaccurate and useless way of holding any gun.

 

[Rigby5]

Explain why there is no difference between reloading every five bullets and reloading every thirty.

Anyone can easily weld magazines together.
The larger capacity magazines simply are the least expensive, since surplus.

 

[Rigby5]

There is a fundamental right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

That right is not absolute, however, and subject to regulations and restrictions by government, including the banning of AR platform rifles, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Wrong.
First of all, the 2nd amendment clearly intended for there to be no federal gun laws at all, and only state jurisdiction, since states and municipalities are the only ones with valid needs for restrictions.

AR platforms have no basis at all for being banned, since they simply are the smallest, lightest, lowest power, and lowest cost rifles.
There is no legal basis for banning them since they clearly are the most popular.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.
First of all, the 2nd amendment clearly intended for there to be no federal gun laws at all, and only state jurisdiction, since states and municipalities are the only ones with valid needs for restrictions.

AR platforms have no basis at all for being banned, since they simply are the smallest, lightest, lowest power, and lowest cost rifles.
There is no legal basis for banning them since they clearly are the most popular.

it also applies to states,,

unless youre saying they can change other rights in the US constitution,,

are you saying they can do that too??

 

[Rigby5]

it also applies to states,,

unless youre saying they can change other rights in the US constitution,,

are you saying they can do that too??

There are a few individual rights in the Bill of Rights, but in general the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal jurisdiction because states were very hesitant to sign onto the federation before the Bill of Rights.
The people did not need or want to prevent states from infringing on individual rights, because the people already had easy means of controlling their state governments.
It was only the new federal government they were being asked to sign onto, that they were worried about.
It was not until the 14th amendment that states were also prevented from abusing individual rights.

The Founders wrote extensively about why they deliberately did NOT want to start listing individual rights in the Constitution. The main one being that individual rights are infinite, so impossible to list.
The Bill of Rights was a compromise, intended basically to relieve fears of federal abuse, and limit federal jurisdictions.

 

[Flash]

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?

You are confused about this.

I legally own a machine gun.

The problem with someone trying to decide

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?

You are confused about this.

I legally own a machine gun. It is a M-16. I have had it ever since the 1970s. There are hundreds of thousands legally own machine guns in private ownership in the US.

The problem with availability to "dangerous and mentally unstable people" is that you can't trust Liberals to make that determination. For instance, Queer Barry's Justice Department put out a position paper shortly after he assumed office that Veterans that own firearms and believe in God are potential terrorists.

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. The recent Bruen decision said that if the right to keep and bear arms is to be infringed it has to be for a damn good reason. The reasons the Libtards have used in the past falls far short of that.

 

[progressive hunter]

There are a few individual rights in the Bill of Rights, but in general the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal jurisdiction because states were very hesitant to sign onto the federation before the Bill of Rights.
The people did not need or want to prevent states from infringing on individual rights, because the people already had easy means of controlling their state governments.
It was only the new federal government they were being asked to sign onto, that they were worried about.
It was not until the 14th amendment that states were also prevented from abusing individual rights.

The Founders wrote extensively about why they deliberately did NOT want to start listing individual rights in the Constitution. The main one being that individual rights are infinite, so impossible to list.
The Bill of Rights was a compromise, intended basically to relieve fears of federal abuse, and limit federal jurisdictions.

youre beating around the bush again,,

can a state change any of the other amendments like the 4th and just kick peoples doors open and search their houses without a warrant??

fact is they cant and why we have the SCOTUS review state laws when they come into question,,

so please stop pushing this lie,,

 

[progressive hunter]

There are a few individual rights in the Bill of Rights, but in general the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal jurisdiction because states were very hesitant to sign onto the federation before the Bill of Rights.
The people did not need or want to prevent states from infringing on individual rights, because the people already had easy means of controlling their state governments.
It was only the new federal government they were being asked to sign onto, that they were worried about.
It was not until the 14th amendment that states were also prevented from abusing individual rights.

The Founders wrote extensively about why they deliberately did NOT want to start listing individual rights in the Constitution. The main one being that individual rights are infinite, so impossible to list.
The Bill of Rights was a compromise, intended basically to relieve fears of federal abuse, and limit federal jurisdictions.

why is it so hard to answer such a simple question??

if the states can change the 2nd A why cant they change the others??


1-8 are all individual rights,,

 

[jwoodie]

so although your opinion means something to you, in the end thats it,, an opinion,,

Wow, how long did it take you to figure that out?

 

[jwoodie]

I legally own a machine gun. It is a M-16. I have had it ever since the 1970s. There are hundreds of thousands legally own machine guns in private ownership in the US.

Not in California.

 

[Flash]

Not in California.

I don't live in Commie California. Only idiots live there.

On a Federal level it is legal to own a machine gun providing you follow the stupid NFA regs.

 

[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?

 

[Flash]

Wrong.
First of all, the 2nd amendment clearly intended for there to be no federal gun laws at all, and only state jurisdiction, since states and municipalities are the only ones with valid needs for restrictions.

It is settled law that the Bill of Rights is universal to all the states.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wow, how long did it take you to figure that out?

actually no. time at all,,

do you have something to say on the topic or just another rant??

you do know editing my comment out of context is against the rules dont you??

 

[DudleySmith]

You, I don't mean this is an insult, are focused on the wrong side of the problem.

40 years ago we didn't have problems with mass shootings and all of this other nonsense. And then we had less gun control.

So what's changed? Our society has. So instead of trying to create more gun laws we should be focused on not banning guns but banning criminals, dopeheads and crazy people.

You can ban every single gun in America but the people who want to go out and hurt others will still be here. But if you ban those people so to speak then you don't need gun control.

^^^This.

 

[DudleySmith]

It is settled law that the Bill of Rights is universal to all the states.

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

 

[jwoodie]

actually no. time at all,,

do you have something to say on the topic or just another rant??

you do know editing my comment out of context is against the rules dont you??

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.