Simple SOLUTION to gun control

[bigrebnc1775]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

Dude... you shoud at least let him get his helmet on before you whack him upside the head with the reality bat.

I don't know how many times I have said what sarge said. uscitizen deserved getting hit because he knew thew answer was coming if not by someone else at least by me.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Translation:
You know you cannot soundly counter what I have said and do not want to further embarass yourself by trying. I accept your concession of the points.

Actually, unlike you, I don't consider a "sound counter" a reply. No, I've been working on my thread on assault weapons since last nigh. Idk when i'll finish it, I try to add many details.

Huh. Well, good luck with that. I'll be happy to tear it apart for you.

It done, tear into whenever you're ready.

 

[candycorn]

Cite for me a violent crime comitted with a legaly-owned belt-fed firearm.
If you cannot, I will accept your withdrawal of the question.

Here is my answer I cannot;

And so, you cannot show where or how these guns have misused by theor legal owners.
How do you suppose you can then show that they shoudl be banned?
What harm does simple posession/ownership cause?
What clear, present and immediate danger does simple posession/ownership of these weapons create?

So I'll ask again, can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

They ARE sold to the general puplic, because the general public has a right to own them, a right that is protected by the Constitution; they shoud contimue to be sold becaue, as you admit, you cannot show where they have been used to harm others.

I thusly accept your withdrawal of the question.

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

I see the game you're playing. Gun advocates always try this; "If they ban your nuke today, they'll ban you're pistol tomorrow." Hopefully (I finally used the word) our leaders will grow some stones and take actions to eliminate these needless weapons from distribution.

 

[candycorn]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

Limiting the size of clips/mags makes perfect sense and infringes on exactly zero constitutional rights. Maybe after the Election, Obama will take on the gun lobby to install some common sense where none exists now.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

Nukes are not "arms" in common use for the individual and militia purposes and thusly illegal on many fronts.

 

[candycorn]

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

Nukes are not "arms" in common use for the individual and militia purposes and thusly illegal on many fronts.

So now the question is "common use for the individual"? Belt fed weapons are hardly in common use.

Try again.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

Nukes are not "arms" in common use for the individual and militia purposes and thusly illegal on many fronts.

So now the question is "common use for the individual"? Belt fed weapons are hardly in common use.

Try again.

A civilian belt for a belt-fed is nothing more than magazine for a semi-auto rifle.

 

[uscitizen]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

Militia yes for military type of weapons but not military type weapons for non militia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

Militia yes for military type of weapons but not military type weapons for non militia.

Wrong. The 39 ruling states the weapons are protected and the current ruling states the amendment is an Individual right. Do keep up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

Militia yes for military type of weapons but not military type weapons for non militia.

Wrong. The 39 ruling states the weapons are protected and the current ruling states the amendment is an Individual right. Do keep up.

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
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.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes


But here's a more recent ruling

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, unlike you, I don't consider a "sound counter" a reply. No, I've been working on my thread on assault weapons since last nigh. Idk when i'll finish it, I try to add many details.

Huh. Well, good luck with that. I'll be happy to tear it apart for you.

It done, tear into whenever you're ready.

Um... where?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here is my answer I cannot;

And so, you cannot show where or how these guns have misused by theor legal owners.
How do you suppose you can then show that they shoudl be banned?
What harm does simple posession/ownership cause?
What clear, present and immediate danger does simple posession/ownership of these weapons create?

So I'll ask again, can we agree that a belt-fed weapon shouldn't be sold to the general public? If not, why not?

They ARE sold to the general puplic, because the general public has a right to own them, a right that is protected by the Constitution; they shoud contimue to be sold becaue, as you admit, you cannot show where they have been used to harm others.

I thusly accept your withdrawal of the question.

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

You failed to address anything that I said. Please try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

Limiting the size of clips/mags makes perfect sense and infringes on exactly zero constitutional rights.

Not that you have, in any meaningful way, been able to show.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

Nukes are not "arms" in common use for the individual and militia purposes and thusly illegal on many fronts.

Evryone knows that the 2nd does not protect nukes; that someone brings them up at all is a sign of rhetorical desperation..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ahh so by the same token, since I can't show that a pocket nuke has been used to harm others, they should be able to be sold based on that insane logic?

Nukes are not "arms" in common use for the individual and militia purposes and thusly illegal on many fronts.

So now the question is "common use for the individual"? Belt fed weapons are hardly in common use.
Try again.

The standard set forth by the court is that for a weapon to fall under the protection of the 2nd, it must be suitable for militia service, in common use at the time, and part of the ordinary mititary equipment.

This -obvuously- applies to machineguns, belt fed or otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution makes no mention of ammunition being a right.
Assault weapons are of certain calibers generally.

However the Supreme Court has clarified several points. One is that in order to be protected under the 2nd Amendment a weapon must be of use to a militia. It must be a weapon in use, of use or previously used by the military. And they have further clarified that the second is an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right.

Militia yes for military type of weapons but not military type weapons for non militia.

Fail. It said no such thing.

 

[charlesslakan]

The NRA are into making money; they have affected legislation so that weapons and 6000 rounds can be sold to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Their servants who we put into office have promoted a big lie and that is the 2nd amendment right of anyone to purchase 6000 rounds and for them to have part in the profit of selling.
When the US Constitution was written, almost every man hunted FOR FOOD, there were hostile Indians all overt the colonies and beyond,and also because of what happened with England, the Foundinding Fathers saw fit to write guns in to our Law.
Militias varied before and during the Revolutionary War from 20,50,100,300 or more men.
They all carried a rifle and probably some had a pistol ,too. The were SINGLE SHOT MUZZLE LOADED WEAPONS.
Does anyone in thie right mind think the founders intended it to be a freedom for man to possess one weapon that could take out their entire militia in seconds? I think not.
If you think about how the law was written in its historical context with the weapons that were available for a man to keep in his home; nothing would compare to what's happening now.
First, many of the weapons being bought can not be used for hunting because their wouldn't be any game left, after being mowed down with a few hundred rounds.
In the military, basic and ait, we got a weapon with 6 life rounds in it, M-16.
It's not anyone's right to own a weapon that can wipe everyone in a PTA meeting out in seconds flat, to say the Founders support it is a lie.
As I said, everyone used muzzle loaded weapons and at best, in a minute, a man might get off two shots.
I don't say go back to that, but I say the nonsense of banana clips, 60 round, and more weapons has to stop if we are going to move ahead in civilization.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The NRA are into making money; they have affected legislation so that weapons and 6000 rounds can be sold to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Their servants who we put into office have promoted a big lie and that is the 2nd amendment right of anyone to purchase 6000 rounds and for them to have part in the profit of selling.
When the US Constitution was written, almost every man hunted FOR FOOD, there were hostile Indians all overt the colonies and beyond,and also because of what happened with England, the Foundinding Fathers saw fit to write guns in to our Law.
Militias varied before and during the Revolutionary War from 20,50,100,300 or more men.
They all carried a rifle and probably some had a pistol ,too. The were SINGLE SHOT MUZZLE LOADED WEAPONS.
Does anyone in thie right mind think the founders intended it to be a freedom for man to possess one weapon that could take out their entire militia in seconds? I think not.
If you think about how the law was written in its historical context with the weapons that were available for a man to keep in his home; nothing would compare to what's happening now.
First, many of the weapons being bought can not be used for hunting because their wouldn't be any game left, after being mowed down with a few hundred rounds.
In the military, basic and ait, we got a weapon with 6 life rounds in it, M-16.
It's not anyone's right to own a weapon that can wipe everyone in a PTA meeting out in seconds flat, to say the Founders support it is a lie.
As I said, everyone used muzzle loaded weapons and at best, in a minute, a man might get off two shots.
I don't say go back to that, but I say the nonsense of banana clips, 60 round, and more weapons has to stop if we are going to move ahead in civilization.

Your post is laughable, when you really educate yourself come back and we'll talk about your opinion.

 

[Politico]

Why would any sane person object to banning the sale of 100 round magazines?

Show me where a 100 round magazine ever killed someone and I would support it with you.

Read the question carefully before responding.

And Charles there are so many things wrong in your post I could write an essay.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why would any sane person object to banning the sale of 100 round magazines?

Show me where a 100 round magazine ever killed someone and I would support it with you.

Read the question carefully before responding.

And Charles there are so many things wrong in your post I could write an essay.

If you want to take the position that the object itself (100 round magazine) can't kill someone, I'd say you're right.

However.............................

It's the ability of people to actually get those 100 round magazines and put them to use that is the problem.