NRA Fanatics are WRONG - Vast Majority of Americans Favor Tougher Gun Control Laws

[Abatis]

You could take it to court and you should win, using Lewis vs US and Miller vs US as precedence

What is it with you and Lewis? What might a federal felon in possession charge being upheld against an insufficient counsel challenge offer to the endeavor of overturning a state assault weapons ban?

And really, why not Heller and McDonald?

It would seem with SCOTUS rulings affirming the 2nd secures an individual right and then applying it to the states, it would be easy pickin's to overturn Commonwealth v. Davis which held that the right to arms in Massachusetts is strictly a collective right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You could take it to court and you should win, using Lewis vs US and Miller vs US as precedence

What is it with you and Lewis? What might a federal felon in possession charge being upheld against an insufficient counsel challenge offer to the endeavor of overturning a state assault weapons ban?

And really, why not Heller and McDonald?

It would seem with SCOTUS rulings affirming the 2nd secures an individual right and then applying it to the states, it would be easy pickin's to overturn Commonwealth v. Davis which held that the right to arms in Massachusetts is strictly a collective right.

What is it with Lewis? Same as with Miller. Do some research on the ruling how about it sport?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have a permanent assault weapons ban here in Mass. It mirrors the 1994 Federal ban. If a police officer catches me with an assault weapon how do you suppose it will go if I tell him the law is wrong on how it defines an assault weapon? If the feds ban assault weapons again will it matter what you think an assault weapon is or how the law defines it?

You could take it to court and you should win, using Lewis vs US and Miller vs US as precedence

<SIGH> Know your rights.
U.S. vs Miller has held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

 

[PredFan]

Thank God for the NRA.

 

[Full-Auto]

If private-sector regulation would help diffuse tensions, then perhaps the NRA could establish a "gun check hotline". Registered members could call the hotline, whenever they took their guns to the range, out shooting, or out hunting? Such might make a prominent show, of gun owners exercising thought, caution, and care, in handling their guns; and that they were not actually lugging them around, under their trench coats, every where, and all the time. (Is that the public fear??)

WOULD YOU LIKE TO TRY ENGLISH THIS TIME..................



**** I dont have a trench coat. Shit shit shit.....

 

[Widdekind]

If private-sector regulation would help diffuse tensions, then perhaps the NRA could establish a "gun check hotline". Registered members could call the hotline, whenever they took their guns to the range, out shooting, or out hunting? Such might make a prominent show, of gun owners exercising thought, caution, and care, in handling their guns; and that they were not actually lugging them around, under their trench coats, every where, and all the time. (Is that the public fear??)

I carry a gun any time I legally can which is most of the time. Am I supposed to call some hotline every time I leave my house? How about when I go from the mall over to a restaurant?

epic FAIL

any NRA hotline would be a voluntary program. Perhaps you could hit speed-dial in the mornings, to indicate "taking the gun out for the day". Such a system would give the appearance of caution & care on the part of gun owners. (simply a suggestion)

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Thank God for the NRA.

a. there is no god

b. the NRA is a terrorist organization

 

[PredFan]

Thank God for the NRA.

a. there is no god

b. the NRA is a terrorist organization

Thank the universe for the terrorist organization known as the NRA.

That better?

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Thank God for the NRA.

a. there is no god

b. the NRA is a terrorist organization

Thank the universe for the terrorist organization known as the NRA.

That better?

Yes, you are being honest.

You should add in there that you are not an idiot, that you know the NRA is owned by gun mfgs and that they dont really give one shit about your rights, just their sales.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If private-sector regulation would help diffuse tensions, then perhaps the NRA could establish a "gun check hotline". Registered members could call the hotline, whenever they took their guns to the range, out shooting, or out hunting? Such might make a prominent show, of gun owners exercising thought, caution, and care, in handling their guns; and that they were not actually lugging them around, under their trench coats, every where, and all the time. (Is that the public fear??)

I carry a gun any time I legally can which is most of the time. Am I supposed to call some hotline every time I leave my house? How about when I go from the mall over to a restaurant?

epic FAIL

any NRA hotline would be a voluntary program. Perhaps you could hit speed-dial in the mornings, to indicate "taking the gun out for the day". Such a system would give the appearance of caution & care on the part of gun owners. (simply a suggestion)

Two words **** NO.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

a. there is no god

b. the NRA is a terrorist organization

Thank the universe for the terrorist organization known as the NRA.

That better?

Yes, you are being honest.

You should add in there that you are not an idiot, that you know the NRA is owned by gun mfgs and that they dont really give one shit about your rights, just their sales.

The biggest terrorist group in America? Would be the white house. and it's strong arm CIA, DOJ, and Homeland security

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Thank the universe for the terrorist organization known as the NRA.

That better?

Yes, you are being honest.

You should add in there that you are not an idiot, that you know the NRA is owned by gun mfgs and that they dont really give one shit about your rights, just their sales.

The biggest terrorist group in America? Would be the white house. and it's strong arm CIA, DOJ, and Homeland security

have you always been a rabid racist or did a Black man act mean to you one day?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, you are being honest.

You should add in there that you are not an idiot, that you know the NRA is owned by gun mfgs and that they dont really give one shit about your rights, just their sales.

The biggest terrorist group in America? Would be the white house. and it's strong arm CIA, DOJ, and Homeland security

have you always been a rabid racist or did a Black man act mean to you one day?

Have you always been this rabid stupid, or did your affliction start when obama became president?

 

[sitarro]

presumably others have observed, that the proximate cause, of the Batman shootings, was the shooter propping open an emergency exit, for perhaps 10 minutes, whilst he retrieved his guns, and donned his armor. Failure to control entrances & exits allowed him to saunter back in, at his leisure, and begin shooting. . . .

Absolutely correct and unless someone wants to argue that the theater shooter needed a bayonet lug, flash suppressor or grenade launcher to commit his crime he would have been able to purchase the weapon he used even if the 1994 law was in effect now . . . And that goes for the drum mag too.

in a word, perhaps you could say, that the shootings resulted, from a "failure of (building) security" -- not due to any inadequacies of gun laws. Perhaps theaters could incentivize security, offering free ticket (or refunds) to anybody catching doors open; and perhaps the film runners in the upstairs back film rooms could be told to, and announce to movie goers, that they will stop movies, and raise the lights, if they see doors left open. A general level of wariness would not be burdensome, and could (evidently) save lives.

A simple alarm going off if those exit doors are breeched would work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Absolutely correct and unless someone wants to argue that the theater shooter needed a bayonet lug, flash suppressor or grenade launcher to commit his crime he would have been able to purchase the weapon he used even if the 1994 law was in effect now . . . And that goes for the drum mag too.

in a word, perhaps you could say, that the shootings resulted, from a "failure of (building) security" -- not due to any inadequacies of gun laws. Perhaps theaters could incentivize security, offering free ticket (or refunds) to anybody catching doors open; and perhaps the film runners in the upstairs back film rooms could be told to, and announce to movie goers, that they will stop movies, and raise the lights, if they see doors left open. A general level of wariness would not be burdensome, and could (evidently) save lives.

A simple alarm going off if those exit doors are breeched would work.

Yep

 

[PredFan]

a. there is no god

b. the NRA is a terrorist organization

Thank the universe for the terrorist organization known as the NRA.

That better?

Yes, you are being honest.

You should add in there that you are not an idiot, that you know the NRA is owned by gun mfgs and that they dont really give one shit about your rights, just their sales.

Their sales = My rights

 

[Full-Auto]

To be factually correct on what an assault weapon is you have to drop the anti gun definition of assault weapons.

But there is only one definition of "assault weapon" and that definition (at least in discussions of federal law) is the criteria of the 1994 law. That means, federally, "assault weapons" no longer exist since the criteria that created them in 1994 as a legal entity, no longer exists.

The danger in discussions about reinstatement of the "Assault Weapons Ban" is that the term will need to be redefined with new criteria drawn up and the wider the net can be sewn, the wider the classes of weapons it can be tailored to "catch".

The term was invented to confuse the masses who don't have any understanding that full-auto weapons have been under strict restrictions since 1934. So yeah, you continue with your misdirected "I'm a super gunner purist and I'm keepin it real" initiative to equate the moldable and dangerous political term "assault weapon" with the tactical and legal reality of what an "assault rifle" is . . . Keep doing it and all that's happeing is helping to push the gun prohibitionist agenda.

I have never, in 20 years of on-line discussion of gun control / gun rights seen a supposed pro-gun rights poster with your ass-backwards thought processes and legal arguments.

I wonder, are you being paid by anti-liberty forces or are you just doing this all on your own?

If what you call an assault weapons is a true assault weapon why doesn't the military use them?

Christ on a Pink Pony you are deluded.

The man asked a question and you cowered from answering................

Why doesnt the military use said weapons....

I dont care what you want to call them. But lets use the term as you prefer..............


Why did democrats put 2000 assorted assault weapons into the hands of felons, we will overlook the money laundering and rendering assistance with drug deliveries for the purpose of this conversation.....


We should not overlook the fact democrats approved the transfer of these weapons through the FBI.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To be factually correct on what an assault weapon is you have to drop the anti gun definition of assault weapons.

But there is only one definition of "assault weapon" and that definition (at least in discussions of federal law) is the criteria of the 1994 law. That means, federally, "assault weapons" no longer exist since the criteria that created them in 1994 as a legal entity, no longer exists.

The danger in discussions about reinstatement of the "Assault Weapons Ban" is that the term will need to be redefined with new criteria drawn up and the wider the net can be sewn, the wider the classes of weapons it can be tailored to "catch".

The term was invented to confuse the masses who don't have any understanding that full-auto weapons have been under strict restrictions since 1934. So yeah, you continue with your misdirected "I'm a super gunner purist and I'm keepin it real" initiative to equate the moldable and dangerous political term "assault weapon" with the tactical and legal reality of what an "assault rifle" is . . . Keep doing it and all that's happeing is helping to push the gun prohibitionist agenda.

I have never, in 20 years of on-line discussion of gun control / gun rights seen a supposed pro-gun rights poster with your ass-backwards thought processes and legal arguments.

I wonder, are you being paid by anti-liberty forces or are you just doing this all on your own?

If what you call an assault weapons is a true assault weapon why doesn't the military use them?

Christ on a Pink Pony you are deluded.

The man asked a question and you cowered from answering................

Why doesnt the military use said weapons....

I dont care what you want to call them. But lets use the term as you prefer..............


Why did democrats put 2000 assorted assault weapons into the hands of felons, we will overlook the money laundering and rendering assistance with drug deliveries for the purpose of this conversation.....


We should not overlook the fact democrats approved the transfer of these weapons through the FBI.

If what he calls an assault weapon is an assault weapon why doesn't the military use them? It's because the civilian models are only assault weapons on paper not in function. which is what really counts.

 

[Abatis]

The man asked a question and you cowered from answering................

Why doesnt the military use said weapons....

They have the "real thing", selective fire "assault rifles"

As far as federal law goes, there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" and hasn't been since Sept 14th, 2004.

I dont care what you want to call them. But lets use the term as you prefer..............

I'd prefer not to use it at all . . . I'd just prefer to call them a semi-auto rifle and be done with it. That puts the onus on those who want to restrict them to make the argument why a black rifle needs to be restricted while a Browning BAR is A-OK . . .

Idiots saying that the weapons that were known as "assault weapons" are not distinguishable from military full-auto weapons does nothing but help the gun prohibitionists.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The man asked a question and you cowered from answering................

Why doesnt the military use said weapons....

They have the "real thing", selective fire "assault rifles"

As far as federal law goes, there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" and hasn't been since Sept 14th, 2004.

I dont care what you want to call them. But lets use the term as you prefer..............

I'd prefer not to use it at all . . . I'd just prefer to call them a semi-auto rifle and be done with it. That puts the onus on those who want to restrict them to make the argument why a black rifle needs to be restricted while a Browning BAR is A-OK . . .

Idiots saying that the weapons that were known as "assault weapons" are not distinguishable from military full-auto weapons does nothing but help the gun prohibitionists.

Since the military will not use the civilian version they really aren't assault weapons are they? They are assault weapons on paper created by anti gun people.