Assault weapons and large magazines ban upheld in New York and Conneticut

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, I think the lawsuits are gonna pile up on manufacturers and gun shops, until they will be very careful who they sell a gun to. The premiums on their liability insurance will eat them alive....

Sure. And lets never punish the criminals instead. Your logic fails hard.

 

[JimH52]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Idiot-Gram . A musket, let's see, how many people could have escaped, and now many others could and would have kicked the shit out of James Holmes before he could reload a musket?

And if it wasn't a gun free zone someone could have shot him and saved lives....

And here is an example of the usual idiocy from the right.

And if that isn't enough for you, wait until they know they are losing and start tossing vile names.....AKA Donald Trump.

 

[Dan Daly]

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms, thus do you agree they are not protected by the 2nd A.?

Do try, though it is not your nature, to be honest and not hypocritical.

Read the NFA of 1934...as silly as it was, it did a fair job of setting your "reasonable" limits on what weapons law-abiding citizens can be trusted by their government to own without some kind of regulation. Granted, I don't subscribe to this notion that it is government's business...unless my actions prove I am unworthy, but I am just trying to help you not ask questions that highlight your ignorance of the subject.

As far as large magazines...if they are the standard magazines designed for that firearm, they are effectively as protected as the firearm...I think Heller agreed. That said, aftermarket magazines that differ from the OEM mags in form or function can probably be considered accessories and regulated as such.

My post was directed at M14, not reasonable gun enthusiasts. I will read the NFA of '34; my only experience with an automatic weapon was one time firing a BAR from the fantail of a DD at a target that had been tossed in the Pacific.

It's not hard for me to imagine such a weapon in the hands of a lightly trained citizen under duress hitting everything but his or her designed target.

The NFA covers more than just automatic weapons...which will become apparent to you when you read it.

Just because you might be irresponsible enough run around shooting full auto when you don't have a clue what you are doing doesn't mean that everyone shares your handicap. In fact, it's really not that difficult...my freakin 13 year old grandson manages just fine.

Finally, I wasn't aware this was a private conversation between you and M14...but if you are hot for him and want to whisper sweet nothings in his ear, I'll see what I can do about getting the mods to instruct you on how to do that privately.

Oh, and **** you! It seems to be a necessary condition of those who have a gun fetish to also be assholes.

said the thin-skinned little asshole who can't come up with any factual rebuttal.

 

[Dan Daly]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not? Or, are you okay with both the former "arm" and the latter "arm" in the possession and control of the average Joe or Josephine?

While most military weapons inhabit the semantic category of "arms," not all are firearms. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were firearms, rifles and pistols. Missiles are not firearms, nor are nukes or lesser bombs.

The bottom line argument will reside in weighing the factor of intent on the part of the Framers. Would they want every citizen to possess a SAM, or a WMD? I don't think so and I strongly doubt any Supreme Court Justice would.

I would disagree when it comes to the Framers. They felt, like I do, that free men did not need government permission to own arms or anything else...unless of course their actions proved them to be irresponsible, criminal, etc. This notion of preemptive distrust of our fellow citizens is not a core principle this country was founded upon.

Indeed, our early government had no issue with citizens owning cannon, in addition to their small arms. Take a look at some of the weapons vets brought home after serving in our many wars and foreign adventures prior to 1934.

We have a farmer here who owns an old cannon dating back to his forebear's service with Mad Anthony Wayne. Nobody ever questioned his right to own it until just after WWII when the feds threatened his grandfather with jail unless he paid the tax on it required by the NFA of 1934. It still sits in the yard of his farmhouse...all nice and legal after he paid the tax...and it hasn't been used to kill anyone. Go figure.

 

[JimH52]

Oh, I think the lawsuits are gonna pile up on manufacturers and gun shops, until they will be very careful who they sell a gun to. The premiums on their liability insurance will eat them alive....

Sure. And lets never punish the criminals instead. Your logic fails hard.

Not if you consider that the gun shop in that case sold the gun to someone who was buying it for a criminal, STANDING AT HIS SIDE. Neglectful sales will lead to more lawsuits. I suppose that is the only way to convince some of their responsibilities.

 

[2aguy]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Idiot-Gram . A musket, let's see, how many people could have escaped, and now many others could and would have kicked the shit out of James Holmes before he could reload a musket?

And if it wasn't a gun free zone someone could have shot him and saved lives....

And here is an example of the usual idiocy from the right.

You mean the times where an armed citizen actually stopped mass shooters and saved lives is idiocy…..moron.

 

[JimH52]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not? Or, are you okay with both the former "arm" and the latter "arm" in the possession and control of the average Joe or Josephine?

While most military weapons inhabit the semantic category of "arms," not all are firearms. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were firearms, rifles and pistols. Missiles are not firearms, nor are nukes or lesser bombs.

The bottom line argument will reside in weighing the factor of intent on the part of the Framers. Would they want every citizen to possess a SAM, or a WMD? I don't think so and I strongly doubt any Supreme Court Justice would.

I would disagree when it comes to the Framers. They felt, like I do, that free men did not need government permission to own arms or anything else...unless of course their actions proved them to be irresponsible, criminal, etc. This notion of preemptive distrust of our fellow citizens is not a core principle this country was founded upon.

Indeed, our early government had no issue with citizens owning cannon, in addition to their small arms. Take a look at some of the weapons vets brought home after serving in our many wars and foreign adventures prior to 1934.

We have a farmer here who owns an old cannon dating back to his forebear's service with Mad Anthony Wayne. Nobody ever questioned his right to own it until just after WWII when the feds threatened his grandfather with jail unless he paid the tax on it required by the NFA of 1934. It still sits in the yard of his farmhouse...all nice and legal after he paid the tax...and it hasn't been used to kill anyone. Go figure.

Does to cannon have a magazine to allow multiple rounds?

 

[Dan Daly]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not? Or, are you okay with both the former "arm" and the latter "arm" in the possession and control of the average Joe or Josephine?

While most military weapons inhabit the semantic category of "arms," not all are firearms. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were firearms, rifles and pistols. Missiles are not firearms, nor are nukes or lesser bombs.

The bottom line argument will reside in weighing the factor of intent on the part of the Framers. Would they want every citizen to possess a SAM, or a WMD? I don't think so and I strongly doubt any Supreme Court Justice would.

I would disagree when it comes to the Framers. They felt, like I do, that free men did not need government permission to own arms or anything else...unless of course their actions proved them to be irresponsible, criminal, etc. This notion of preemptive distrust of our fellow citizens is not a core principle this country was founded upon.

Indeed, our early government had no issue with citizens owning cannon, in addition to their small arms. Take a look at some of the weapons vets brought home after serving in our many wars and foreign adventures prior to 1934.

We have a farmer here who owns an old cannon dating back to his forebear's service with Mad Anthony Wayne. Nobody ever questioned his right to own it until just after WWII when the feds threatened his grandfather with jail unless he paid the tax on it required by the NFA of 1934. It still sits in the yard of his farmhouse...all nice and legal after he paid the tax...and it hasn't been used to kill anyone. Go figure.

Does to cannon have a magazine to allow multiple rounds?

Do you mean "do some types of artillery have magazines to allow multiple rounds?"

Yes.

FYI, a freakin revolver has a cylinder that "allows multiple rounds"

 

[danielpalos]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut

I guess the NRA was asleep?

Probably; the security and domestic tranquility of a free a State is everyone's responsibility, as the militia of a State. Why do we have more gun laws instead of more, well regulated militia and better aqueducts and better roads.

 

[Vandalshandle]

In AZ, where guns are not restricted by state law, at all, not one single person has been killed by an alligator in over 100 years. Coincidence? I don't THINK so!

 

[M14 Shooter]

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

I am conceding nothing.

Your repeated refusal to even try to present such an argument is your concession.

I am not arguing anything/ The argument you have is with the court. WRITE A LETTER!

I accept your concession, that there is no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

So now you are stuttering? Sad....Please go stroke you rifle barrel. It will sooth you.....

Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not? Or, are you okay with both the former "arm" and the latter "arm" in the possession and control of the average Joe or Josephine?

While most military weapons inhabit the semantic category of "arms," not all are firearms. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were firearms, rifles and pistols. Missiles are not firearms, nor are nukes or lesser bombs.

The bottom line argument will reside in weighing the factor of intent on the part of the Framers. Would they want every citizen to possess a SAM, or a WMD? I don't think so and I strongly doubt any Supreme Court Justice would.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

Oh look -- more dishonesty.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not?

Straw, man.

Gee, once again you prove your ignorance, and yours is not willful.
Straw Man is the name given to a logical fallacy.

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

Any and all classes of firearms fall under the definition of 'arms" as found in Miller and Heller.

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms

Like triggers, firing pins and barrels, they an integral part of the function of (most) firearms, and are thusly protected.
Amy limit on magazine size is arbitrary and capricious; arbitrary and capricious limits on rights inherently violate the constitution.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try not to present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Still waiting for a response.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Finally, I wasn't aware this was a private conversation between you and M14...but if you are hot for him and want to whisper sweet nothings in his ear, I'll see what I can do about getting the mods to instruct you on how to do that privately.

You'll see that WC will run away from the conversation he offered, after responding with emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
As per the norm.

Oh look -- I was right.
Surprise surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Idiot-Gram . A musket, let's see, how many people could have escaped, and now many others could and would have kicked the shit out of James Holmes before he could reload a musket?

Lol Wry. You were just caught lying.

This is not new.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

BTW, I'd never runaway from punks who are too cowardly to go to the market or mall without a gun. The basic reason being I learned to watch the hands of crooks and crazies, not their eyes, for they'll attack one's back.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath...

More proof that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try to not present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Dan Daly]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

The FBI's actual statistics disagree with you, as has already been pointed out, so once again, the lying POS of denial is staring back at you in your mirror.

 

[JimH52]

[
Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

I again accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

And Federal Court disagrees with you. Nuff Said.....