Gun control polls
- Thread starter Luddly Neddite
- Start date
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Is this a deliberate mischarcterization of what Scalia said, or do you just not know what Scalia said?
Automatic weapons are perfectly legal to own under federal law.
This is true.
Also true.
Also true.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Close. They said it was not within judicial notice that a short-barrel shotgun met the condtitions necessary to fall under the protection of the 2nd, because it was not shown to be the case.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Yes I know where you stand most of the time, but this time you are dead wrong and full auto is right, Rights are not based on needs.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Lewis vs U.S.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
But you are giving away the means for your firearms to be the most effective when you do need them.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Then you handicap the militia when you place restrictions on them.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
The only firearms that the second amendment protects are those of suitable military use
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
No I'm not, My guns still shoot just fine.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
I understand that and also understand how you can use that to not support restricting the purchase of fully automatic weapons.
There are court precedences that say otherwise but I do understand your opinion.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
He didnt say YOU did he?
Ok Im weighing in here. ( and this isnt directed to anyone in particular )
**** protecting ourselves from the government. That just aint gonna happen.
If the government wants you taken out, a drone strike from a mile away will take your happy ass out.
So the argument that our guns allow us to overthow our government or keep them honest is a bullshit argument.
Second, **** the NRA!
Im all for the 2nd amendment, but the NRA stopped working on THAT long ago. Its simply a political lobby group owned by gun manufacturers that spreads stupid dumbass slogans so we can all post things on forums and facebook whenever theres a mass shooting.
Third, FUUUUUUCK the a gun is only a tool, like a hammer argument!!!!! As soon as someone walks into a crowded movie theatre ( or anywhere for that matter ) and kills 12 and wounds 59 others armed with hammers, then and ONLY then will that argument bear ANY merit. Until that ACTUALLY happens ( that is NOT a challenge for one of you hard of thinking dumbasses to go out and give it a try. sit the **** down! ) I dont want to hear, see or be exposed to that lame ass 3rd grade bullshit argument ever again.
FOURTH, I am SICK of the GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE slogan. So Ive come up with a new one.
Put it on a bumper sticker then stick it so far up your ass I can read it through your eyes.
LAST:
I fully support the 2nd amendment. Fully.
But Im a little sick of the bullshit that comes along with that support. When that amendment was written into the Constitution, everyone had muskets. One shot, then take a few minutes to reload and fire again. If someone got close to you, swing it like a club and hope for the best.
Now we have 90 rounds a minute assault rilfes. ITS ******* DIFFERENT NOW!
But hey, Im still NOT saying lets ban us some guns.
But what I would like is for those of us that actually SUPPORT 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS to wake the **** up and realize that OUR RIGHT was just paid for with the lives of 12 innocent people. And lets not forget the 59 wounded.
Our rights are not free. Some one pays for them. And shit like this Batman Massacre in Colorado is the cost. It happens. It happens quite often in fact. And MAYBE just MAYBE, those of us that support the 2nd amendment ought to be a little more ******* respectful of that!!!
Someone else PAYS for OUR right to own guns.
People like this:
and this:
So the next time one of you ******* TOUGH GUYS starts spouting off about how awesome your gun collection is...Remember the face of the 6 year old girl who gave her life for your right to own those guns and try , just TRY, to be a little humble.
Yes he did .
Tell that to the Kurds in Iraq. Every year America is getting closer to those countries where government thugs bust through the door and rape your wife and children in front of you. OH and don't say it will never happen here
Yes everybody had a musket, even the military and law.
If her mother was a mother the little girl would never have been there. If they did not have gun free zones less people would have been killed.
Bullshit man. Dont Armchair Rambo the situation. If I had been there with my family, Id have pushed them towards the door, sheilding them with my body and keeping my firearm HOLSTERED.
A dark movie theatre, gun fire, people screaming and running and you think UNTRAINED civilians pulling out their weapons and firing at anyone with a gun would have solved the problem?
It would have been a clusterfuck and many more deaths and wounded.
I agree if it had been MY 6 year old she would NOT be at a midnight screening of anything. She would have been home in bed. That being said, its a free country and people are free to raise their kids as they see fit.
BUT...using THAT as justification for the death of a child is bullshit man. Youre better than that.
The rest of your post I can agree to disagree with because its at least reasonable.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
1. None of your business
2. Enough for me not to go into detail
and once again WHEN did I say RESTRICT ANYTHING?
Come on someone QUOTE where I came out IN FAVOR of any form of gun control at all.
Until you ALL can actually do that, stop making bullshit assumptions.
Last edited:
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
He didnt say YOU did he?
Ok Im weighing in here. ( and this isnt directed to anyone in particular )
**** protecting ourselves from the government. That just aint gonna happen.
If the government wants you taken out, a drone strike from a mile away will take your happy ass out.
So the argument that our guns allow us to overthow our government or keep them honest is a bullshit argument.
Second, **** the NRA!
Im all for the 2nd amendment, but the NRA stopped working on THAT long ago. Its simply a political lobby group owned by gun manufacturers that spreads stupid dumbass slogans so we can all post things on forums and facebook whenever theres a mass shooting.
Third, FUUUUUUCK the a gun is only a tool, like a hammer argument!!!!! As soon as someone walks into a crowded movie theatre ( or anywhere for that matter ) and kills 12 and wounds 59 others armed with hammers, then and ONLY then will that argument bear ANY merit. Until that ACTUALLY happens ( that is NOT a challenge for one of you hard of thinking dumbasses to go out and give it a try. sit the **** down! ) I dont want to hear, see or be exposed to that lame ass 3rd grade bullshit argument ever again.
FOURTH, I am SICK of the GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE slogan. So Ive come up with a new one.
Put it on a bumper sticker then stick it so far up your ass I can read it through your eyes.
LAST:
I fully support the 2nd amendment. Fully.
But Im a little sick of the bullshit that comes along with that support. When that amendment was written into the Constitution, everyone had muskets. One shot, then take a few minutes to reload and fire again. If someone got close to you, swing it like a club and hope for the best.
Now we have 90 rounds a minute assault rilfes. ITS ******* DIFFERENT NOW!
But hey, Im still NOT saying lets ban us some guns.
But what I would like is for those of us that actually SUPPORT 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS to wake the **** up and realize that OUR RIGHT was just paid for with the lives of 12 innocent people. And lets not forget the 59 wounded.
Our rights are not free. Some one pays for them. And shit like this Batman Massacre in Colorado is the cost. It happens. It happens quite often in fact. And MAYBE just MAYBE, those of us that support the 2nd amendment ought to be a little more ******* respectful of that!!!
Someone else PAYS for OUR right to own guns.
People like this:
and this:
So the next time one of you ******* TOUGH GUYS starts spouting off about how awesome your gun collection is...Remember the face of the 6 year old girl who gave her life for your right to own those guns and try , just TRY, to be a little humble.
Yes he did .
Tell that to the Kurds in Iraq. Every year America is getting closer to those countries where government thugs bust through the door and rape your wife and children in front of you. OH and don't say it will never happen here
Yes everybody had a musket, even the military and law.
If her mother was a mother the little girl would never have been there. If they did not have gun free zones less people would have been killed.
Bullshit man. Dont Armchair Rambo the situation. If I had been there with my family, Id have pushed them towards the door, sheilding them with my body and keeping my firearm HOLSTERED.
A dark movie theatre, gun fire, people screaming and running and you think UNTRAINED civilians pulling out their weapons and firing at anyone with a gun would have solved the problem?
It would have been a clusterfuck and many more deaths and wounded.
I agree if it had been MY 6 year old she would NOT be at a midnight screening of anything. She would have been home in bed. That being said, its a free country and people are free to raise their kids as they see fit.
BUT...using THAT as justification for the death of a child is bullshit man. Youre better than that.
The rest of your post I can agree to disagree with because its at least reasonable.
All my firearms except for the bolt action have a flash light attached to them my carry pistol has a laser with flash light, Most states require that you take a firearm training course before you can CCW. Now if you say you can't see the shooter the shooter also can't see you, but I will add you can see his muzzle flash
Fleeing would be the worse thing too do. Stay low flat to the floor. You do realize in large theaters the aisle between rows of chairs are larger and you could lay flat to the floor and wait for the shooter to make a move and when he did and passes by you or get's close to you he dead meat. Untrained people react by standing up and running trained people react by falling to the floor and watching what the shooter is doing.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Lewis vs. US and Miller vs US are the court rulings that state what I said.
candycorn
Diamond Member
MuadDib
He's called The Stig
- Apr 16, 2012
- 962
- 257
- 28
Reb is correct. By all accounts, Holmes was predominantly shooting those who tried to flee the theater.
DGS49
Diamond Member
My veracity and accuracy have been challenged!
I wrote - as respects the purchase of new "assault rifles," "...automatic weapons are already prohibited..."
From the Fountain of all Knowledge (Wikipedia): "The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer"). The language was added in an amendment from William J. Hughes and referred to as the Hughes Amendment.[22] Machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (i.e. May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law."
Therefore, I was correct in stating that if the discussion is about sales of [new] "assault weapons," then we are speaking of semi-automaic rifles that "look scary" and are no more lethal and a good deer rifle.
I wrote that, "[Scalia] has no problems with legal restraint on the types of weapons that citizens may own." That is to say, he believes that some constraints may be constitutionaly permissible.
From the transcript:
WALLACE: Let's turn to an issue that is the news right now with the massacre in Colorado. And that is gun control.
You wrote in 2008, the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: how far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semiautomatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individual's constitutional right to bear arms?
SCALIA: What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.
So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where --
WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute, SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.
WALLACE: So, how do you decide if you're a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.
My statements, in both cases, were correct.
I wrote - as respects the purchase of new "assault rifles," "...automatic weapons are already prohibited..."
From the Fountain of all Knowledge (Wikipedia): "The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer"). The language was added in an amendment from William J. Hughes and referred to as the Hughes Amendment.[22] Machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (i.e. May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law."
Therefore, I was correct in stating that if the discussion is about sales of [new] "assault weapons," then we are speaking of semi-automaic rifles that "look scary" and are no more lethal and a good deer rifle.
I wrote that, "[Scalia] has no problems with legal restraint on the types of weapons that citizens may own." That is to say, he believes that some constraints may be constitutionaly permissible.
From the transcript:
WALLACE: Let's turn to an issue that is the news right now with the massacre in Colorado. And that is gun control.
You wrote in 2008, the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: how far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semiautomatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individual's constitutional right to bear arms?
SCALIA: What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.
So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation. There were certainly location limitations where --
WALLACE: But what about these technological limitations? Obviously, we're not talking about a handgun or a musket. We're talking about a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute, SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.
WALLACE: So, how do you decide if you're a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.
My statements, in both cases, were correct.
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,114
- 325
"Therefore, I was correct in stating that if the discussion is about sales of [new] "assault weapons," then we are speaking of semi-automaic rifles that "look scary" and are no more lethal and a good deer rifle."
By definition assault rifles are capable of full auto fire so there are no simi-auto assault rifles. Also machineguns, submachineguns and assault rifles are diferent types of weapons.
I don't consider assault rifles more lethal than a good deer rifle.
By definition assault rifles are capable of full auto fire so there are no simi-auto assault rifles. Also machineguns, submachineguns and assault rifles are diferent types of weapons.
I don't consider assault rifles more lethal than a good deer rifle.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Bluff.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
Minnesota Sues Trump Administration For Access To Evidence In Alex Pretti, Renee Good Killings.
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 5
-
Putin Tells Iran to Stop Fighting and Make a Deal with Trump- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 8
-
