Pittsburgh gun safety proposal would ban semiautomatic rifles

[blackhawk]

Do they not realize that pretty much every rifle and pistol that it is legal to own is semi automatic?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

You loon the .223 hunting rifle fires the same caliber round as an AR-15. In fact the hunting rifle tends to have a heavier barrel and can fire a hotter load. .

 

[Timmy]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

You loon the .223 hunting rifle fires the same caliber round as an AR-15. In fact the hunting rifle tends to have a heavier barrel and can fire a hotter load. .

Would you take the AR 15 hunting ? What is an AR 15 designed for ? Hunting deer? Nope .

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

You loon the .223 hunting rifle fires the same caliber round as an AR-15. In fact the hunting rifle tends to have a heavier barrel and can fire a hotter load. .

Would you take the AR 15 hunting ? What is an AR 15 designed for ? Hunting deer? Nope .

Well yeah I would. I know what I'm doing.

 

[2aguy]

Do they not realize that pretty much every rifle and pistol that it is legal to own is semi automatic?

Yes...yes they do realize this....they just know that lots and lots of Americans do not know the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic and by the time they realize that the anti gunners have done a bait and switch, it will be too late...the guns will be banned.

Ignorance is the best tool the anti gunners have.....

 

[2aguy]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

You loon the .223 hunting rifle fires the same caliber round as an AR-15. In fact the hunting rifle tends to have a heavier barrel and can fire a hotter load. .

Would you take the AR 15 hunting ? What is an AR 15 designed for ? Hunting deer? Nope .

I don't hunt, but an AR-15 is primarily a civilian self defense rifle...that can also be used for hunting.

 

[blackhawk]

Do they not realize that pretty much every rifle and pistol that it is legal to own is semi automatic?

Yes...yes they do realize this....they just know that lots and lots of Americans do not know the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic and by the time they realize that the anti gunners have done a bait and switch, it will be too late...the guns will be banned.

Ignorance is the best tool the anti gunners have.....

Except any ban of a semi automatic would quickly be struck down by the courts.

 

[Claudette]

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto was joined by Gov. Tom Wolf, members of City Council and state Democratic lawmakers Friday in proposing legislation that would ban semiautomatic rifles and certain ammunition and firearms accessories within city limits.

Pittsburgh gun safety proposal would ban semiautomatic rifles
--------------------------------------------------------

Well now we can add that NJ is doing this Hmmm wonder if it will trickle across the country with all the snowflake pussy freaks out there.

Gotta laugh. The criminals and gang members sure won't abide by that ban.

The people that don't need semi automatic rifles will still have them while law abiding gun owners won't.

Talk about foolish.

 

[Pellinore]

Ban bullets, the Constitutional protection is for arms, not bullets.

And you just demonstrated why we don't leave our Rights to people like you...

Your rights have already been infringed, you can’t own a nuke. Among a ton of other arms.

One of Justice Scalia's favorite reminders for us was that the Second Amendment specified "keep and bear arms," implying that it applies only to weapons you can pick up and carry. Thus, it did not grant the Minutemen the right to personally own cannons or battleships, which in modern times would include artillery guns or nuclear weapons.

That said, your point does still work when applied to fully-automatic machine guns or surface-to-air missiles. Both are hand-portable but are severely restricted under the 1934 NFA. The legal precedent has already been set to restrict which weapons we can own under the Second Amendment.

There are time /place / manner restrictions on all our rights .

Why do you think people get permits for rallies?

But, there is absolutely no time/place/manner restriction in one's home or car.

So, I can have whatever weapon I choose in my home or car, right?

Sure there are . You can’t scream out profanities out your window at 2 am. (Speech)
You can’t marry a 12 year old (religion)
You can’t post kiddee porn (press) .

There’s all kinds of limits to our rights .

Freedom does not preclude consequences.

I am free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater all I like. If everyone laughs and no one gets hurt, there is no crime.

Timmy is correct. 'Fire' in a crowded theater is an illustration, there is no law prohibiting that word specifically in that place. There are, however, laws against sedition, slander, incitement of a riot, and so on, that are clear limits to the right to free speech.

No...again, you can't use your freedom of speech to harm other people.....what they want to do with gun bans is prevent any exercise of the Right, even when it is lawful...that is not a correct limit on a Right.....

I don't think you're correctly characterizing what "they" want to do, but I do agree with you in that as long as the Second Amendment exists, it cannot be wholly nullified by "lower" legislation. It can, however, be restricted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ban bullets, the Constitutional protection is for arms, not bullets.

And you just demonstrated why we don't leave our Rights to people like you...

Your rights have already been infringed, you can’t own a nuke. Among a ton of other arms.

One of Justice Scalia's favorite reminders for us was that the Second Amendment specified "keep and bear arms," implying that it applies only to weapons you can pick up and carry. Thus, it did not grant the Minutemen the right to personally own cannons or battleships, which in modern times would include artillery guns or nuclear weapons.

That said, your point does still work when applied to fully-automatic machine guns or surface-to-air missiles. Both are hand-portable but are severely restricted under the 1934 NFA. The legal precedent has already been set to restrict which weapons we can own under the Second Amendment.

But, there is absolutely no time/place/manner restriction in one's home or car.

So, I can have whatever weapon I choose in my home or car, right?

Sure there are . You can’t scream out profanities out your window at 2 am. (Speech)
You can’t marry a 12 year old (religion)
You can’t post kiddee porn (press) .

There’s all kinds of limits to our rights .

Freedom does not preclude consequences.

I am free to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater all I like. If everyone laughs and no one gets hurt, there is no crime.

Timmy is correct. 'Fire' in a crowded theater is an illustration, there is no law prohibiting that word specifically in that place. There are, however, laws against sedition, slander, incitement of a riot, and so on, that are clear limits to the right to free speech.

No...again, you can't use your freedom of speech to harm other people.....what they want to do with gun bans is prevent any exercise of the Right, even when it is lawful...that is not a correct limit on a Right.....

I don't think you're correctly characterizing what "they" want to do, but I do agree with you in that as long as the Second Amendment exists, it cannot be wholly nullified by "lower" legislation. It can, however, be restricted.

Only if the citizenry permits it.

 

[dannyboys]

The Pittsburgh proposal applies, basically, to "assault" weapons, which make up only a small part of "semiautomatic" weapons. It is silly and possibly unconstitutional, but it should be reported accurately, eh?

Semi-automatics are not "assault weapons".. Functionally there is no difference between a semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle and an AR-15. They are trying to ban cosmetics because they make the rifle look scary.

Not true . They want to ban high powered weapons specifically designed to cause major injury to people .

You loon the .223 hunting rifle fires the same caliber round as an AR-15. In fact the hunting rifle tends to have a heavier barrel and can fire a hotter load. .

Would you take the AR 15 hunting ? What is an AR 15 designed for ? Hunting deer? Nope .

I don't hunt, but an AR-15 is primarily a civilian self defense rifle...that can also be used for hunting.

Just rebrand the name. Instead of calling them 'AR 15' Call them 'Daisy .223'. Redesign them to look like the old Daisy BB guns. With Roy Rogers and Dale Evans on the plastic stock.
That ought to solve the problem with the Pittsburgh city officials. No nego gang banger would ever be caught dead waving a 'Daisy' around.

 

[2aguy]

Do they not realize that pretty much every rifle and pistol that it is legal to own is semi automatic?

Yes...yes they do realize this....they just know that lots and lots of Americans do not know the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic and by the time they realize that the anti gunners have done a bait and switch, it will be too late...the guns will be banned.

Ignorance is the best tool the anti gunners have.....

Except any ban of a semi automatic would quickly be struck down by the courts.

You really think so? You have the 3rd, 4th, 9th and 2nd courts of appeals completely ignoring the rulings on gun control...Heller, Mcdonald, Caetano, Miller.......they are allowing bans and regulations that actual Supreme Court rulings say they can't do....

 

[blackhawk]

Do they not realize that pretty much every rifle and pistol that it is legal to own is semi automatic?

Yes...yes they do realize this....they just know that lots and lots of Americans do not know the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic and by the time they realize that the anti gunners have done a bait and switch, it will be too late...the guns will be banned.

Ignorance is the best tool the anti gunners have.....

Except any ban of a semi automatic would quickly be struck down by the courts.

You really think so? You have the 3rd, 4th, 9th and 2nd courts of appeals completely ignoring the rulings on gun control...Heller, Mcdonald, Caetano, Miller.......they are allowing bans and regulations that actual Supreme Court rulings say they can't do....

They will get overturned by the SC they always do.