Gun Control and Logic

[M14 Shooter]

He should be pitied, and any responses to him should made only for the sake of lurkers who might have an interest in facts.

Careful - he'll call you cupcake, which is how you know he knows he's losing.
Then he'll post some inane rebus, which how you know he knows he's lost.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong.
The Second Amendment is about weapons for self-defense, and the individual right to possess a handgun for lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘war.’

The 2nd protects firearms other than handguns, and for purposes other than self-defense.
Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They were trying to remove the Cult of the Military Weapons that was running rampant.

C'mon. You don't really buy that bullshit, do you? And, even if it were true, WHO THE **** CARES??? Millions of people own "military" style weapons (scary looking sporting rifles) and do no harm whatsoever.

The gun cult is bullshit excuse.

They just don't want people comfortable around guns. It's the same old nonsense brought to you by your local neighborhood commies.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong, cupcake. Stop making shit up.

No. He is right. The one on top has a bayonet holder. The gun could have 2 of the several components that made up a "assault weapon" and not be banned.

That bottom rifle has a pistol grip and a magazine that protrudes below the body of the rifle, but no flash hider or bayonet holder. LEGAL under the 1994 bullshit ban.

Here, the law:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that.

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support, you prove me wrong. Just saying "You are Wrong" doesn't cut it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you don't mind if we remove some of the Military features do you? Hate to break it to you, but that's the law here, not my personal fabrication. The alternative is for them to be banned completely. Would you rather have the alternative? Or would you rather just have some of the military features removed to break the cult status of the gun.

Try and answer what I have asked honestly without any pro-panda and name calling.

GETTING TIRED OF YOUR ANTI 2ND AMENDMENT BULLSHIT DARYL,,,

Then stop trying to cramp your interpretation of it down everyone else's throat. If you are tired of hearing me state the laws and the reasons behind them, I suggest you move to a place that has no firearm regulation laws. I hear Yemen has openings all the time.

ITS NOT AN interpretation, ITS THE LETTER OF THE LAW,,,

WHAT YOURE PEDDLING IS INTERPITAION

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that. You are just taking 5 words and trying to use it for any and all situations. That only worked until 1851 when the Walker Colt was introduced and things became more complex than those 5 works could handle. Now, if you want to just use those 5 words, turn in all your modern weapons and only have flintlocks and single shot cap and ball guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue in the 21st century.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,is a lot more than 5 words,,,

and since you follow the courts interpretation and not the written constitution it is you that is wrong not me

this is the problem that arises when discussing it with someone that doesnt understand the original intent of the 2nd

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They were trying to remove the Cult of the Military Weapons that was running rampant.

C'mon. You don't really buy that bullshit, do you? And, even if it were true, WHO THE **** CARES??? Millions of people own "military" style weapons (scary looking sporting rifles) and do no harm whatsoever.

The gun cult is bullshit excuse.

They just don't want people comfortable around guns. It's the same old nonsense brought to you by your local neighborhood commies.


.

There you have it. It all must be a Red Commie Scare to take over. You just hit the fruitcake setting.

 

[progressive hunter]

GETTING TIRED OF YOUR ANTI 2ND AMENDMENT BULLSHIT DARYL,,,

Then stop trying to cramp your interpretation of it down everyone else's throat. If you are tired of hearing me state the laws and the reasons behind them, I suggest you move to a place that has no firearm regulation laws. I hear Yemen has openings all the time.

ITS NOT AN interpretation, ITS THE LETTER OF THE LAW,,,

WHAT YOURE PEDDLING IS INTERPITAION

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that. You are just taking 5 words and trying to use it for any and all situations. That only worked until 1851 when the Walker Colt was introduced and things became more complex than those 5 works could handle. Now, if you want to just use those 5 words, turn in all your modern weapons and only have flintlocks and single shot cap and ball guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue in the 21st century.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,is a lot more than 5 words,,,

and since you follow the courts interpretation and not the written constitution it is you that is wrong not me

this is the problem that arises when discussing it with someone that doesnt understand the original intent of the 2nd

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong, cupcake. Stop making shit up.

No. He is right. The one on top has a bayonet holder. The gun could have 2 of the several components that made up a "assault weapon" and not be banned.

That bottom rifle has a pistol grip and a magazine that protrudes below the body of the rifle, but no flash hider or bayonet holder. LEGAL under the 1994 bullshit ban.

Here, the law:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

From your very own cite.

‘‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means—‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of thefirearms in any caliber, known as—‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies AvtomatKalashnikovs (all models);‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI andGalil;‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15;‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

Your own cites backs that up, cupcake. And so does the modern court rulings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that.

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong, cupcake. Stop making shit up.

Look at you, standing fast in your ignorance.
How is it you do not understand the legal and physical difference between pre- and post-ban ARs?
How is it you do not understand that under the 1994 law the lower rifle is not an 'assault weapon' and thus legal?
Given the fact the lower rifle was legal to manufacture and sell, how did the ban affect the use of the AR15 as a weapon of "mass murder", as per your claim?[

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then stop trying to cramp your interpretation of it down everyone else's throat. If you are tired of hearing me state the laws and the reasons behind them, I suggest you move to a place that has no firearm regulation laws. I hear Yemen has openings all the time.

ITS NOT AN interpretation, ITS THE LETTER OF THE LAW,,,

WHAT YOURE PEDDLING IS INTERPITAION

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that. You are just taking 5 words and trying to use it for any and all situations. That only worked until 1851 when the Walker Colt was introduced and things became more complex than those 5 works could handle. Now, if you want to just use those 5 words, turn in all your modern weapons and only have flintlocks and single shot cap and ball guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue in the 21st century.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,is a lot more than 5 words,,,

and since you follow the courts interpretation and not the written constitution it is you that is wrong not me

this is the problem that arises when discussing it with someone that doesnt understand the original intent of the 2nd

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

And yet AR15s, sans bayonet lug and flash hider, were manufactured and sold, freely and legally, during the 1994 AWB.
How do you not know this?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that.

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test. He stated that the 10 round max does not meet the Heller test. But he hinted that 15 or 20 might. Colorado went through this in 2013 where the state passed a 10 round and it was bounced as well. In a matter of a few hours, the 15 round max was passed and that withstood the courts. Colorado didn't know it at the time but it was helping to establish what would be known in legal terms as the "Heller Test". Will you stay down on this or should I just keep kicking your while you are down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Really?
Compare and contrast the gun laws and gun-related crime in Mexico and the US.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

And yet AR15s, sans bayonet lug and flash hider, were manufactured and sold, freely and legally, during the 1994 AWB.
How do you not know this?

They weren't sold. If they were, they were sold on the black market. The AR-15 was specifically named in the ban according to your own cite. Stop making shit up, cupcake.

 

[Rustic]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Lol
Na, not really
The only problem this country has with violence is in progressive controlled urban areas With strict gun control laws, you fat sack of shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that.

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Really?
Compare and contrast the gun laws and gun-related crime in Mexico and the US.

Most of Mexico doesn't have ANY gun crimes. If they weren't situated directly next to their biggest customer there would be no need for the guns and violence at that high of a rate. Now, compare the US with Yemen who has NO gun laws.