Another "assault weapon" hits the streets!

[mattskramer]

He's seen the light! Good job Matthew.

Okay. Now if you will help remove the ASPCA and laws against murder, I can practice animal and human sacrifices to my God in accordance to my religion. After all, the 1st amendment says that government will not prohibit me from exercising my religion.

There are limits (constitutional or unconstitutional) or there should be reasonable limits to the Bill of Rights. Of course I have not changed my mind. I’ve just grown tired of the debate.

 

[Ninja]

Oh ok. Good thing you're still against civilians owning "70 machine guns" - as human beings have enough limbs to wield all 70 at once.

 

[mattskramer]

Oh ok. Good thing you're still against civilians owning "70 machine guns" - as human beings have enough limbs to wield all 70 at once.

It would be neat to latch them to a cart and tie the triggers with pull-strings. Make a few alterations to the barrels and you can haul quite a machine.

 

[Ninja]

LOL

You're a sponge cake. I have to admit, such a small and wieldy weapon would be quite easy to conceal.

 

[pegwinn]

Okay. Now if you will help remove the ASPCA and laws against murder, I can practice animal and human sacrifices to my God in accordance to my religion. After all, the 1st amendment says that government will not prohibit me from exercising my religion. Actually it says Congress, not government. The distinction is important since the states can actually make those laws. Virginia for example clearly invoked god in this law. But, hey, you are making progress and we got your back.
There are limits (constitutional or unconstitutional) or there should be reasonable limits to the Bill of Rights. Of course I have not changed my mind. I’ve just grown tired of the debate.

+

 

[Shogun]

Okay. Now if you will help remove the ASPCA and laws against murder, I can practice animal and human sacrifices to my God in accordance to my religion. After all, the 1st amendment says that government will not prohibit me from exercising my religion.

There are limits (constitutional or unconstitutional) or there should be reasonable limits to the Bill of Rights. Of course I have not changed my mind. I’ve just grown tired of the debate.

I seem to recall posting a scotus decision that inclined that very sentiment.... we need a page that acts like a record of the ground we cover so we don't keep running in circles.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I really doubt that repealing weapons laws would result in greater mayhem, seeing as how it wasn't any worse back when it was legal to own machine guns, explosives, cannons, etc. without a license.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. You win. I give up.

So... you can't tell us how may legally owned machineguns are used in crimes?

If you can quantify the problem posed by legally owned X, how can you possible argue that legally owned X should be banned?

Let’s have all sorts of arms that anyone could manufacture. Anyone, as long has he has never been convicted of a felony should be free to buy as many such guns as he can afford.

We have that now.
I see that as further evidence of a kind and benevolent God.

But please, keep repeating your nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course I have not changed my mind. I’ve just grown tired of the debate.

Does this mean you're FINALLY going to go away?

You can argue for all the limits you want, but you cannot simply ignore the 2nd because you think it is a 'good idea' to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. Now if you will help remove the ASPCA and laws against murder, I can practice animal and human sacrifices to my God in accordance to my religion. After all, the 1st amendment says that government will not prohibit me from exercising my religion.

And, again, what you fail to understand that not just ANY religious practice falls under the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment, just as not just anythign you might want to say qualifies as "free speech".

What you need to do is describe the 2nd amendment equivelant to libel/slander, something you dont even come close to doing.

 

[mattskramer]

And, again, what you fail to understand that not just ANY religious practice falls under the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment, just as not just anythign you might want to say qualifies as "free speech".

What you need to do is describe the 2nd amendment equivelant to libel/slander, something you dont even come close to doing.

There are no enumerated and specified limits to arms in the 2nd amendment.
There are no enumerated and specified limits to free speech or religious practices in the 1st amendment. You seem to have no qualms about there not being limits to the 2nd amendment. Yet, you suggest that there are or should be limits to the 1st amendment. Perhaps we should edit the 2nd amendment to include limits on slander. As it stands, it does not mention any limits.

Can we say double standard and intellectual inconsistency?

 

[M14 Shooter]

are unherent in the terms used.
You seem to have no qualms about there not being limits to the 2nd amendment.

If that's what you think, its because you haven't been paying attention.

Yet, you suggest that there are or should be limits to the 1st amendment. Perhaps we should edit the 2nd amendment to include limits on slander.

Why would you change the 2nd amendment to include limits on slander?

And you STILL arent paying attention:
WHAT is the 2nd amendment equivelant to libel/slander?
That is, what falls outside the protection of the 2nd?

Can we say double standard and intellectual inconsistency?

You could if there were any, but there isn't. That you see any at all is, again, because you aren't paying attantion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are no enumerated and specified limits to arms in the 2nd amendment.
There are no enumerated and specified limits to free speech or religious practices in the 1st amendment. You seem to have no qualms about there not being limits to the 2nd amendment. Yet, you suggest that there are or should be limits to the 1st amendment.

Can we say double standard and intellectual inconsistency?

Your whole argument is a house of cards. No one that is sane really believes there are no reasonable limits. However those limits MUST be consistant with the Amendment or article in the Constitution and balanced against the powers and other rights in said document.

Anyone that argues that no section or amendment has any limits is a fool or is playing a game.

One very consistant limit on the 2nd amendment would be what is considered a personal weapon. The intent of the amendment is clear. It was meant and still means that Individuals have a right to own personal weapons.

The court ( Supreme Court) has provided one answer to that right, in 1939 they ruled that the current laws on the books were in fact constitutional and that in order for a firearm to be considered protected by the 2nd Amendment it must have a use by the military and be shown to have been used by the military. Thus they held a sawed off shotgun was illegal since the military did not use them and had not anytime in the foreseeable past deemed them appropriate for the military.

One could argue a machine gun or a bazooka or rocket launcher were used by the military but then I suspect the Court would rightly rule that they are not considered "individual" arms or "personal" weapons.

"Individual" being a very good and reasonable starting point for reasonable limits.

Now one could argue that a fully automatic rifle or pistol was an "individual" weapon also, but again I suspect the court would rule that since the military does not issue them to all members and in fact treats them as team or squad weapons, again such a claim would reasonably lose. Further the military does not issue fully automatic rifles or pistols as far as I know. They issue rifles with a burst function that will fire 3 round burst. One could probably make an argument for that feature. Again fully automatic weapons ( The SAW for example) are issued to teams or squads.

These type weapons would be covered by the second amendment as State controlled weapons, in armories or issued to individual Militiamen or units. Just as the above weapons would be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your whole argument is a house of cards. No one that is sane really believes there are no reasonable limits. However those limits MUST be consistant with the Amendment or article in the Constitution and balanced against the powers and other rights in said document.

Glad to see YOU have been paying attention

Now one could argue that a fully automatic rifle or pistol was an "individual" weapon also, but again I suspect the court would rule that since the military does not issue them to all members and in fact treats them as team or squad weapons,

That's not true.
M16s and M4s are both fully automatic rifles (even if currently limited to 3RB) and are not team/squad weapons.

Its impossible to argue that anything similar to what's found in a typical infantry company does not fall under the definition of 'arms'.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Glad to see YOU have been paying attention


That's not true.
M16s and M4s are both fully automatic rifles (even if currently limited to 3RB) and are not team/squad weapons.

Its impossible to argue that anything similar to what's found in a typical infantry company does not fall under the definition of 'arms'.

We disagree. The M16 and the M4 are specifically limited to 3 round burst. And are limited because the full auto feature was deemed a waste of ammo and not fitting with the US military mission.

The SAW is a team or squad weapon. Any heavy Machine gun is considered a team served weapon, as are mortors and while rocket launchers can be individually issued they are not standard issue. Leaving room for a "reasonable" person to argue they are not "personal" weapons. TOWs are also Crew served weapons.

Further when you and others try to argue that they are personal arms and protected by the 2nd Amendment you fuel the fire of the anti gun nuts.

Of course the very fact they are NOT used in crime fails to impress these idiots. Just as I have never heard of a drive by bayoneting either.

Reasonable people come to reasonable solutions. Fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, mortors and Machineguns are not "reasonable". And in fact in most States with the proper background check and License YOU can own them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We disagree. The M16 and the M4 are specifically limited to 3 round burst. And are limited because the full auto feature was deemed a waste of ammo and not fitting with the US military mission.

3RB is still automatic, at least in legal terms. Further, the M16/M16A1, M2 carbine, BARs and some M14s are also full-auto. Other full-auto rifles, such as the AK47, etc, are issued to individuals in any number of other armed forces. Point being is that full-auto rifles -are- issued to individuals and are not exclusively team/squad weapons.

The SAW is a team or squad weapon. Any heavy Machine gun is considered a team served weapon....leaving room for a "reasonable" person to argue they are not "personal" weapons.

Yes... but then, the the "individual" weapon standard isn't exactly sound.
There isnt any reason why I, as an individual, cannot own a GPMG and then, within the context of 'militia service' use it with another person, or give/issue it to a team to use. Militia need not be forrmed by the state or under authority of same, and so to limit crew/team weapons to state-only status deprives thise legitiate militias from the weapons they need to be effective.

Further when you and others try to argue that they are personal arms and protected by the 2nd Amendment you fuel the fire of the anti gun nuts.

That's OK by me.
I dont mind when they try to argue about things they know nothing about.
MOST of them just LOOk at a gun and decide if it should be banned.

Reasonable people come to reasonable solutions.

I would agree.
If the intention of the 2nd is to gauarantee that -the people- always have access to the weapons necessary to form an effective milita, then they need weapons that would allow that militia to be effective. THAT is reasonable.

This, at the VERY least, covers any -firearm- you care to mention.

Fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, mortors and Machineguns are not "reasonable". And in fact in most States with the proper background check and License YOU can own them.

But... they DO fall under the definition of "arms", as currently held.

Oh.. missed this:

Thus they held a sawed off shotgun was illegal since the military did not use them and had not anytime in the foreseeable past deemed them appropriate for the military.

Not true.
The court said that it was not within "judicial notice" that these weapons were used -- that is, no one presented evidence to that effect. We all know that the military has and contines to use shotguns, many of which DO have barrels shorter than 18"; had evidnce been presented to that effect, then the court would have, apparently, ruled that the 2nd -does- protect those weapons for individual ownership/use.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

3RB is still automatic, at least in legal terms. Further, the M16/M16A1, M2 carbine, BARs and some M14s are also full-auto. Other full-auto rifles, such as the AK47, etc, are issued to individuals in any number of other armed forces. Point being is that full-auto rifles -are- issued to individuals and are not exclusively team/squad weapons.


Yes... but then, the the "individual" weapon standard isn't exactly sound.
There isnt any reason why I, as an individual, cannot own a GPMG and then, within the context of 'militia service' use it with another person, or give/issue it to a team to use. Militia need not be forrmed by the state or under authority of same, and so to limit crew/team weapons to state-only status deprives thise legitiate militias from the weapons they need to be effective.


That's OK by me.
I dont mind when they try to argue about things they know nothing about.
MOST of them just LOOk at a gun and decide if it should be banned.


I would agree.
If the intention of the 2nd is to gauarantee that -the people- always have access to the weapons necessary to form an effective milita, then they need weapons that would allow that militia to be effective. THAT is reasonable.

This, at the VERY least, covers any -firearm- you care to mention.


But... they DO fall under the definition of "arms", as currently held.

Oh.. missed this:

Not true.
The court said that it was not within "judicial notice" that these weapons were used -- that is, no one presented evidence to that effect. We all know that the military has and contines to use shotguns, many of which DO have barrels shorter than 18"; had evidnce been presented to that effect, then the court would have, apparently, ruled that the 2nd -does- protect those weapons for individual ownership/use.

And you and all those that make these arguments simply fuel the undecideds that get told about your stand. Further militias are supposed to be regulated by the State. Personal armies, which would be a personal militia are not legal.

One could argue that since the States no longer care to regulate or run militias that other lower Government entities like Counties or Cities/towns could, using the the Bill of Rights. And MAYBE one could reasonably argue that "properly" regulated militia that met all laws and accepted the authority of the Federal Government over them when called on by the Congress, or if not in session, the President would still be legal.

As for no militias, I know for a fact North Carolina has a militia run by the State. It is though unarmed and does not meet for drills with weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you and all those that make these arguments simply fuel the undecideds that get told about your stand.

That doesnt mean I am wrong.

Further militias are supposed to be regulated by the State. Personal armies, which would be a personal militia are not legal.

No one said anything about a 'personal militia'. If the people of my town, faced with some calamity, decide to band together, under arms, and defend our town from whatever threat we might face, without permission from the state, we're perfectly within our rights to do so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That doesnt mean I am wrong.


No one said anything about a 'personal militia'. If the people of my town, faced with some calamity, decide to band together, under arms, and defend our town from whatever threat we might face, without permission from the state, we're perfectly within our rights to do so.

Already covered. But do pretend otherwise. Once again so long as a Governmental body has some control over said Militia it can be justified in just about any court except maybe the 9th Circuit Court or California.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Already covered.

Erroneously, yes.

States have the power to regulate their own militias, true.
But this doesnt preclude the legitimate formation of a militia without state sanction.