Zone1 Why not just amend the National Firearms Act to include ARs and AKs?

[alang1216]

Silly you, chosing to not understand that the Constitution, and the protections afforded to certain rights under it, overrule the majority.

I understand, it is a very common practice around the world. The Taliban and the Chinese Communist Party are minorities that have protections that allow them to overrule the majority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I understand,....

Obviously not.

 

[alang1216]

SCOTUS doesn’t rule based upon precedent. Lower courts do that. SCOTUS rules based upon the CONSTITUTION. If SCOTUS ruled based on precedent segregation would still be the law of the land as would the criminalization of mixed race marraiges.

BS - Gorsuch at his confirmation: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

 

[2aguy]

BS - Gorsuch at his confirmation: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

And you therefore believe that since Plessy v Ferguson was law and precedent, that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn it?

Good to know...

 

[2aguy]

BS - Gorsuch at his confirmation: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

AZ is also right...the Supreme Court sets Precedent, they are not bound by it, especially when previous courts are wrong.........the Supreme court is exactly that, the Supreme court...........all other courts obey them, not the other way around.

 

[alang1216]

And you therefore believe that since Plessy v Ferguson was law and precedent, that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn it?

Good to know...

Probably still be the law of the land if those White Southerners had understood what the word 'equal' meant.

 

[alang1216]

AZ is also right...the Supreme Court sets Precedent, they are not bound by it, especially when previous courts are wrong.........the Supreme court is exactly that, the Supreme court...........all other courts obey them, not the other way around.

They are bound to respect and that is what every Justice says during their confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, many suffer from memory loss soon after.

 

[2aguy]

Probably still be the law of the land if those White Southerners had understood what the word 'equal' meant.

Let me fix that for you....

It would still be the law of the land if the democrats who were on the Supreme Court when they made it Constitutional weren't replaced by normal Justices later...........

The democrat party defended slavery, racism, jim crow, lynching, the kkk and every other racist thing that happened in this country........

It was democrats, not white southerners...

 

[2aguy]

They are bound to respect and that is what every Justice says during their confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, many suffer from memory loss soon after.

No...they aren't.....they are on the Supreme Court....they are bound by no Precedent....they make Precedent.

 

[alang1216]

No...they aren't.....they are on the Supreme Court....they are bound by no Precedent....they make Precedent.

You're welcome to you fantasies, I prefer reality. Or do you have a SCOTUS source that says they are bound by no Precedent?

 

[alang1216]

It was democrats, not white southerners...

A very poor rewrite of history.

 

[AZrailwhale]

They are bound to respect and that is what every Justice says during their confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, many suffer from memory loss soon after.

He never said that precedent couldn’t be overturned. He said it would be considered.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You're welcome to you fantasies, I prefer reality. Or do you have a SCOTUS source that says they are bound by no Precedent?

Look at history, SCOTUS has overturned precedent many times since 1787. The only thing set in stone is the Constitution and Bill of Rights and even the Constitution is subject to amendment. If you and your friends wanted Roe to be the permanent law of the land, you should have amended the Constitution to allow it. You never had enough support in the House and Senate to pass a law allowing abortion, let alone the two thirds of each legislative house and three quarters of the states, so you used a liberal SCOTUS to force the citizenry to accept abortion. Up until this last election, you had control of both the Houses AND the presidency for two entire years and you didn’t pass any federal laws allowing abortion. Don’t blame conservatives because you continually fail to complete your promises.

 

[alang1216]

Look at history, SCOTUS has overturned precedent many times since 1787. The only thing set in stone is the Constitution and Bill of Rights and even the Constitution is subject to amendment. If you and your friends wanted Roe to be the permanent law of the land, you should have amended the Constitution to allow it. You never had enough support in the House and Senate to pass a law allowing abortion, let alone the two thirds of each legislative house and three quarters of the states, so you used a liberal SCOTUS to force the citizenry to accept abortion. Up until this last election, you had control of both the Houses AND the presidency for two entire years and you didn’t pass any federal laws allowing abortion. Don’t blame conservatives because you continually fail to complete your promises.

So you're saying that if the Senate took up an abortion rights bill no conservative would filibuster it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you're saying that if the Senate took up an abortion rights bill no conservative would filibuster it?

Not after Democrats exercise their power to end the filibuster.

 

[alang1216]

Not after Democrats exercise their power to end the filibuster.

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option, voting 48–52 to overrule a decision of the chair and eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. An abortion rights bills is still subject to filibuster.

 

[M14 Shooter]

On November 21, 2013,....

Nothing here changes the fact Democrats can -- "exercise their power" to -- end the filibuster.
I mean, if abortion is important enough for them to do so.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

Police such as swat and alert response teams use ar 15s

full auto, not the same ones sold to the public which are semi auto, different weapons

 

[bigrebnc1775]

full auto, not the same ones sold to the public which are semi auto, different weapons

No they are not full auto
Police would never use full auto taking a chance hitting civilians.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wonder if it's possible to have a real discussion on so called "assault weapons" without it devolving into hysterics. Let's see. I propose that if the Democrats really wanted to ban ARs and AKs they could do it simply by amending the already existing National FireArms Act of 1934. It has already been amended twice so why not just stop with the angry speeches and amend this law to do it? It is clearly related to the new class of weapons so named "assault weapons". I believe the Democrats don't really want to do anything, they get more political mileage out of posturing and speech making on "Gun Control". What say you?

National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA...

www.atf.gov

‘so called "assault weapons"’

Which demonstrates you have no interest in a real discussion.