Abatis
Platinum Member
And they don't even exist on paper anymore (federally).
Equating the invented political term "assault weapon" as a synonym for "assault rifle" is just stupid.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NRA Fanatics are WRONG - Vast Majority of Americans Favor Tougher Gun Control Laws
- Thread starter Kerry Won Ohio
- Start date
And they don't even exist on paper anymore (federally).
Equating the invented political term "assault weapon" as a synonym for "assault rifle" is just stupid.
If what he calls an assault weapon is an assault weapon why doesn't the military use them? It's because the civilian models are only assault weapons on paper not in function. which is what really counts.
And they don't even exist on paper anymore (federally).
Equating the invented political term "assault weapon" as a synonym for "assault rifle" is just stupid.
uhhummmmmm
Abatis
Platinum Member
Since the military will not use the civilian version they really aren't assault weapons are they?
?????????? Asking the question means you dismiss the legal definition for "assault weapon" that was established in the 1994 law and are promoting one YOU have invented that has some sort of "military use" aspect. You seem to understand that "assault weapons" were never "military weapons" but you persist with the "why doesn't the military use them if they are assault weapons" inquiry . . . Jesus H Christ, you are either a moron or schizophrenic.
They are assault weapons on paper created by anti gun people.
No Shit Sherlock. So why must you elevate the term to be military select fire firearms? What is the benefit in you arguing that "assault weapons" = "assault rifles"?
ConzHateUSA
Rookie
- Jul 10, 2012
- 1,728
- 109
- 0
- Banned
- #224
Thank the universe for the terrorist organization known as the NRA.
That better?
Yes, you are being honest.
You should add in there that you are not an idiot, that you know the NRA is owned by gun mfgs and that they dont really give one shit about your rights, just their sales.
Their sales = My rights
nah, their sales are their sales, your rights are meaningless to them and all conz ....
If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendments militia meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe ones right as a private individual, is not as a militia but as a person (The individual personality of a human being: self.). Person or persons is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a person, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to person is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun person/s as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individuals right to bear arms as a person?
Merriam Webster militia, a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
=
Article 2, Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;
=
In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, militia is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to people in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a militia. People is mentioned a total 9 times.
=
Its not enough to just say that person(s) is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that person.
..No Person shall be a Representative..
..whole Number of free Persons,..
..three fifths of all other Persons
..No person shall be a Senator
..And no Person shall be convicted
..no Person holding any Office
..Names of the Persons voting for
of such Persons as any of the States
not exceeding ten dollars for each Person
And no Person holding any
or Person holding an Office of Trust o
and vote by Ballot for two persons,
List of all the Persons voted for,
The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
and if no Person have a Majority,
the Person having the greatest Number
No person except a natural born Citizen,
Any Person be eligible to that .
No Person shall be convicted of
except during the Life of the Person attainted ..
A Person charged in any State
No Person held to Service
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
and the persons or things to be seized .
..No person shall be held to answer
..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense .
they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,
the person voted for as Vice-President,
all persons voted for as President, .
all persons voted for as Vice-President
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President,
and if no person have such majority,
..the persons having the highest numbers
The person having the greatest number of votes
..and if no person have a majority,
But no person constitutionally ineligible
All persons born or naturalized
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
nor deny to any person within
number of persons in each State, .
No person shall be a Senator or
..and such person shall act accordingly .
of the death of any of the persons from
death of any of the persons from
No person shall be elected to the office
and no person who has held the office of President,
..to which some other person was elected
shall not apply to any person holding the office
..prevent any person who may be holding
=
Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to person, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.
=
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
United States v Emerson
The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government's success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England."
=
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.
=
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).
=
307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
Structural Analysis
Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.
=
After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the intent to to bear arms. Analysis of structural statutory construction, ..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,.. individual citizens, a person, to bear arms however proposed and debated, there is reference to person mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.
=
The explaining by the many well intentioned people into trying to bring the Second Amendment into the 21st century gun debate cannot be overcome by interpretive speculation evolving into word variations hoping that if you say it something long enough, many times over and over again, people will believe it. You cannot get there from here.
=
If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent. It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think...is the preferred result. Fullbright v. United States Dept of Educ.
=
Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) [W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws. (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.
=
What are we missing?
Merriam Webster militia, a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
=
Article 2, Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;
=
In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, militia is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to people in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a militia. People is mentioned a total 9 times.
=
Its not enough to just say that person(s) is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that person.
..No Person shall be a Representative..
..whole Number of free Persons,..
..three fifths of all other Persons
..No person shall be a Senator
..And no Person shall be convicted
..no Person holding any Office
..Names of the Persons voting for
of such Persons as any of the States
not exceeding ten dollars for each Person
And no Person holding any
or Person holding an Office of Trust o
and vote by Ballot for two persons,
List of all the Persons voted for,
The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
and if no Person have a Majority,
the Person having the greatest Number
No person except a natural born Citizen,
Any Person be eligible to that .
No Person shall be convicted of
except during the Life of the Person attainted ..
A Person charged in any State
No Person held to Service
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
and the persons or things to be seized .
..No person shall be held to answer
..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense .
they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,
the person voted for as Vice-President,
all persons voted for as President, .
all persons voted for as Vice-President
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President,
and if no person have such majority,
..the persons having the highest numbers
The person having the greatest number of votes
..and if no person have a majority,
But no person constitutionally ineligible
All persons born or naturalized
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
nor deny to any person within
number of persons in each State, .
No person shall be a Senator or
..and such person shall act accordingly .
of the death of any of the persons from
death of any of the persons from
No person shall be elected to the office
and no person who has held the office of President,
..to which some other person was elected
shall not apply to any person holding the office
..prevent any person who may be holding
=
Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to person, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.
=
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
United States v Emerson
The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government's success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England."
=
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.
=
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).
=
307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
Structural Analysis
Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.
=
After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the intent to to bear arms. Analysis of structural statutory construction, ..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,.. individual citizens, a person, to bear arms however proposed and debated, there is reference to person mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.
=
The explaining by the many well intentioned people into trying to bring the Second Amendment into the 21st century gun debate cannot be overcome by interpretive speculation evolving into word variations hoping that if you say it something long enough, many times over and over again, people will believe it. You cannot get there from here.
=
If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent. It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think...is the preferred result. Fullbright v. United States Dept of Educ.
=
Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) [W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws. (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.
=
What are we missing?
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
Irrelevant. Not the point.
Contrary to what the deranged NRA fanatics on this messageboard have to say, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans favor tougher gun control laws --
A 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 63 percent of Americans favor a ban on high-capacity magazines; just as many supported an assault-weapons ban.
According to the poll, even a majority of gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, although by a smaller margin. 54% of them favor it, and 44% oppose --
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan11_Econ.pdf
Also in 2011, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 83 percent supported financing a system in which people treated for mental illness would be reported to a federal gun registry database to prevent them from buying guns; 71 percent favored this for those treated for drug abuse.
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1 Guns and Discourse.pdf
So let me simplify this poll data for you uninformed, unsophisticated NRA simpletons -- most Americans are on MY SIDE, not yours.
All of your right-wing nutjob spinning and excuse-making isn't going to change that fact.
Most Americans?...as in those Americans that voted the clown Marxist Obama into a second term?...as in the unenlightened mass of people that vote for a living and don't really give a shit about anything except what the government can give them?
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
Well, I guess the bills will just sail through Congress then...
...what specifically is your concern?
...what specifically is your concern?
Contrary to what the deranged NRA fanatics on this messageboard have to say, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans favor tougher gun control laws --
A 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 63 percent of Americans favor a ban on high-capacity magazines; just as many supported an assault-weapons ban.
According to the poll, even a majority of gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, although by a smaller margin. 54% of them favor it, and 44% oppose --
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan11_Econ.pdf
Also in 2011, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 83 percent supported financing a system in which people treated for mental illness would be reported to a federal gun registry database to prevent them from buying guns; 71 percent favored this for those treated for drug abuse.
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1 Guns and Discourse.pdf
So let me simplify this poll data for you uninformed, unsophisticated NRA simpletons -- most Americans are on MY SIDE, not yours.
All of your right-wing nutjob spinning and excuse-making isn't going to change that fact.
Most Americans?...as in those Americans that voted the clown Marxist Obama into a second term?...as in the unenlightened mass of people that vote for a living and don't really give a shit about anything except what the government can give them?
The Fortune 500 just recorded record profits.
If Obama is a marxist, he's a really poor one.
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,112
- 325
Contrary to what the deranged NRA fanatics on this messageboard have to say, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans favor tougher gun control laws --
A 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 63 percent of Americans favor a ban on high-capacity magazines; just as many supported an assault-weapons ban.
According to the poll, even a majority of gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, although by a smaller margin. 54% of them favor it, and 44% oppose --
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan11_Econ.pdf
Also in 2011, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 83 percent supported financing a system in which people treated for mental illness would be reported to a federal gun registry database to prevent them from buying guns; 71 percent favored this for those treated for drug abuse.
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1 Guns and Discourse.pdf
So let me simplify this poll data for you uninformed, unsophisticated NRA simpletons -- most Americans are on MY SIDE, not yours.
All of your right-wing nutjob spinning and excuse-making isn't going to change that fact.
Most Americans?...as in those Americans that voted the clown Marxist Obama into a second term?...as in the unenlightened mass of people that vote for a living and don't really give a shit about anything except what the government can give them?
The Fortune 500 just recorded record profits.
If Obama is a marxist, he's a really poor one.
Maybe, but he tops the list of idiots and assholes.
Most Americans?...as in those Americans that voted the clown Marxist Obama into a second term?...as in the unenlightened mass of people that vote for a living and don't really give a shit about anything except what the government can give them?
The Fortune 500 just recorded record profits.
If Obama is a marxist, he's a really poor one.
Maybe, but he tops the list of idiots and assholes.
I think you just described yourself.
Wow how much dust did this thread have on it before someone pulled it out of the archives?
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Contrary to what the deranged NRA fanatics on this messageboard have to say, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans favor tougher gun control laws --
A 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 63 percent of Americans favor a ban on high-capacity magazines; just as many supported an assault-weapons ban.
According to the poll, even a majority of gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, although by a smaller margin. 54% of them favor it, and 44% oppose --
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan11_Econ.pdf
Also in 2011, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 83 percent supported financing a system in which people treated for mental illness would be reported to a federal gun registry database to prevent them from buying guns; 71 percent favored this for those treated for drug abuse.
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1 Guns and Discourse.pdf
So let me simplify this poll data for you uninformed, unsophisticated NRA simpletons -- most Americans are on MY SIDE, not yours.
All of your right-wing nutjob spinning and excuse-making isn't going to change that fact.
BS Poll. Everyone wants controls on guns. Just because someone says they favor tougher gun control laws, does not mean they agree with Obama and the left about what laws, and banning certain guns.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
The Fortune 500 just recorded record profits.
If Obama is a marxist, he's a really poor one.
Maybe, but he tops the list of idiots and assholes.
I think you just described yourself.
Funny I thought he was talking about you.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
The NRA's new no background checks position means that your friendly neighborhood gangbanger,
getting out of prison today after doing a 7 year stretch for armed robbery,
could go to the nearest gun shop and buy himself a whole new set of armaments, and be back in the armed robbery business before you could say jack robinson.
Now tell us, gun nuts,
how many normal Americans do you think support that????
getting out of prison today after doing a 7 year stretch for armed robbery,
could go to the nearest gun shop and buy himself a whole new set of armaments, and be back in the armed robbery business before you could say jack robinson.
Now tell us, gun nuts,
how many normal Americans do you think support that????
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
So let me simplify this poll data for you uninformed, unsophisticated NRA simpletons -- most Americans are on MY SIDE, not yours.
All of your right-wing nutjob spinning and excuse-making isn't going to change that fact.
And thankfully the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy so the fundamental, individual rights of a citizen are not subject to the ignorant whims of collectivists and those they have brainwashed, even if they constitute a majority.
BOOYAH!!! Post of the year so far.
Spoonman
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2010
- 18,163
- 7,661
- 330
Contrary to what the deranged NRA fanatics on this messageboard have to say, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans favor tougher gun control laws --
A 2011 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 63 percent of Americans favor a ban on high-capacity magazines; just as many supported an assault-weapons ban.
According to the poll, even a majority of gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, although by a smaller margin. 54% of them favor it, and 44% oppose --
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan11_Econ.pdf
Also in 2011, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 83 percent supported financing a system in which people treated for mental illness would be reported to a federal gun registry database to prevent them from buying guns; 71 percent favored this for those treated for drug abuse.
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1120a1 Guns and Discourse.pdf
So let me simplify this poll data for you uninformed, unsophisticated NRA simpletons -- most Americans are on MY SIDE, not yours.
All of your right-wing nutjob spinning and excuse-making isn't going to change that fact.
4 democratic senators gout a very different reaction from their voters
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
Fact: The vast majority of German Citizens fully supported the Nazis.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 89
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 864
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 429
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 7
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-