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.
Hmm. Words are not speech; by your argument it is OK to ban words.Because they have yet to head a sound argument to that end, with a specific and detailed explanation as to how said ban does not violate the Constitution.Why would any sane person object to banning the sale of 100 round magazines?
Givie it a try. I dare you.
it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.
The issue here is the absence of a sound argument for banning a magazine for a legal weapon that is protected by the constitution. Your statement here does not achieve that goal.further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.
Yes. And I'm looking for a sound argument fot that ban, one that does violate the Constitution.The question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
Show this to be the case.it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings...
US v Miller states that to fall under the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for service in the militia, be of a kind in common use at the time, and one that is part of the ordinary military equipment.it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.
further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.
the question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings they should be more closely regulated if not outright banned.
The 1939 Supreme Court ruling would disagree with you. In order to be protected under the second Amendment a weapon must be in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That clearly includes high capacity magazines.
A magazine is not a weapon. That aside your criteria only fixes a minimum standard. We clearly do not allow individuals to own all weaponry used by the military.
This is a lie, or abject ignorance.You claimed that in order for there to be constitutionally sound limitations put on the rights to free speech and gun ownership, there has to be a clear, immediate, and present danger that the law is addressing.As I said:Just because you set conditions for the argument doesn't make the conditions legitimate.
Your agument fails, and my statement stands - because no one has heard a sound argument to that end, one that specifically explains how that ban does not violate the Constitution.
Get back to me when you figure out a way to address the question.
There is no such criterion.
Yep. Perfectly legal for him to do so under state and federal law.it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.
further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.
the question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings they should be more closely regulated if not outright banned.
The 1939 Supreme Court ruling would disagree with you. In order to be protected under the second Amendment a weapon must be in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That clearly includes high capacity magazines.
That would also include fully automatic weapons, so by your logic the Aurora killer should have been able to legally purchase and own those to carry out his act.
California bans both 'assault weapons' and .50BMG rifles.Name one.Guns are curremtly banned in many places -- California has several.Cite any serious attempt to ban guns.
Please present a sound argumet for same, including an explanation as to how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.Sorry, but that's the dumbest "solution" I've seen anyone come up with...and that's saying a lot.
I love my guns and want to keep them. I also support sensible gun laws.
So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.
I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?
California bans both 'assault weapons' and .50BMG rifles.Name one.Guns are curremtly banned in many places -- California has several.
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California bans both 'assault weapons' and .50BMG rifles.Name one.Guns are curremtly banned in many places -- California has several.
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Assault weapons' and .50BNG rifles are guns.So the statement the guns are banned is not quite accurate.California bans both 'assault weapons' and .50BMG rifles.Name one.
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please present a sound argumet for same, including an explanation as to how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.So explain what sensible gun laws need to be passed. Ohh and make sure they do not violate my second amendment rights or my supposed right to privacy.
I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?
'Assault weapons' and .50BNG rifles are guns.So the statement the guns are banned is not quite accurate.California bans both 'assault weapons' and .50BMG rifles.
Gun laws in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They are banned.
Thus, guns are banned, just as I said.
What's the difference in time between firing off 3x20 magazines and 6x10 rd magazines from an AR-15, and how does that difference in time support the necessity of the ban you propose?It forces someone to re-load instead of spraying seemingly limitless numbers of rounds into formerly breathing individuals.Please present a sound argumet for same, including an explanation as to how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.I like the idea to limit magazine/clip size. Your thoughts?
A magazine ban isnt a ban?It's not a ban (nice try).
Hmm. Neither are words. By your argument, words can be banned as well.Clips/magazines aren't mentioned in the Constitution of the US.
You wanted an example. I provided it. You have accepted my example as legitimate.By that standard, guns are banned in every state in the union. So what is the problem?'Assault weapons' and .50BNG rifles are guns.So the statement the guns are banned is not quite accurate.
They are banned.
Thus, guns are banned, just as I said.
You wanted an example. I provided it. You have accepted my example as legitimate.By that standard, guns are banned in every state in the union. So what is the problem?'Assault weapons' and .50BNG rifles are guns.
They are banned.
Thus, guns are banned, just as I said.
Someone asked to "cite any serious attempt to ban guns".Hmmmm... sorry. I thought you trying to make a point.You wanted an example. I provided it. You have accepted my example as legitimate.By that standard, guns are banned in every state in the union. So what is the problem?
it's not overly complicated. one could simply argue that a magazine itself was not a weapon.
further, as a nation we've already decided that the second amendment isn't absolute. we don't allow people to own surface to air missiles, large bombs, or chemical weapons. we limit the arms people have a right to keep all the time.
the question then becomes where is the line and do or should large magazines cross it?
it is my opinion that since they serve no other practical purpose than to enable mass shootings they should be more closely regulated if not outright banned.
The 1939 Supreme Court ruling would disagree with you. In order to be protected under the second Amendment a weapon must be in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That clearly includes high capacity magazines.
That would also include fully automatic weapons, so by your logic the Aurora killer should have been able to legally purchase and own those to carry out his act.
This is a lie, or abject ignorance.You claimed that in order for there to be constitutionally sound limitations put on the rights to free speech and gun ownership, there has to be a clear, immediate, and present danger that the law is addressing.As I said:
Your agument fails, and my statement stands - because no one has heard a sound argument to that end, one that specifically explains how that ban does not violate the Constitution.
Get back to me when you figure out a way to address the question.
There is no such criterion.
Decide which and let us know.
Re-loading time. When you're not firing, the police can take shots at you with more accuracy, people you're shooting at can get away.What's the difference in time between firing off 3x20 magazines and 6x10 rd magazines from an AR-15, and how does that difference in time support the necessity of the ban you propose?It forces someone to re-load instead of spraying seemingly limitless numbers of rounds into formerly breathing individuals.Please present a sound argumet for same, including an explanation as to how such a ban does not violate the Constitution.
No, its a limit on the size of magazines/clips. Not a ban.A magazine ban isnt a ban?It's not a ban (nice try).
[/QUOTE]Hmm. Neither are words. By your argument, words can be banned as well.Clips/magazines aren't mentioned in the Constitution of the US.
