Is TheSecond Amendment Being Pimped For Profits

[Grindelwald]

No, it's not - provided that the banning stops there. What assurance do we have that it WILL stop there?

There are over 300M firearms in this country with a tiny fraction being assault weapons. You really think going any farther is an option?

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

There are over 300M firearms in this country with a tiny fraction being assault weapons. You really think going any farther is an option?

The legislature of New York State just did. Or weren't you paying attention?

[flyboy56]

There are over 300M firearms in this country with a tiny fraction being assault weapons. You really think going any farther is an option?

Still waiting on that definition of an assault weapon and what makes it so different from a "regular" semi-automatic gun or rifle?

[Grindelwald]

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=325911

It's in that thread at least 5 times, lazy one.

[musicmd]

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=325911

It's in that thread at least 5 times, lazy one.

He maybe shell shocked

[flyboy56]

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=325911

It's in that thread at least 5 times, lazy one.

I want to hear it from you. I know semi already understands what people like to label assault weapons which are just semi-automatic guns or rifles. Do you think defenders of the 2nd Amendment are going to accept single shot bolt action loading rifles only? Even 2 revolvers can unload 12 shots in seconds.

[flyboy56]

He maybe shell shocked

And you think a shell shocked war veteran is funny?

[Daan]

.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...e-gun-ban.aspx

Quote

•Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California's highly restrictive ban.

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

End Quote


This MoonBat LWNJ proposal is a joke. It has no chance.

.

[flyboy56]

.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...e-gun-ban.aspx

Quote

•Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the "pistol grip" of which "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon," the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California's highly restrictive ban.

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, "I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation" and "It will be carefully focused." Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

End Quote


This MoonBat LWNJ proposal is a joke. It has no chance.

.

And everyone knows California is like a box of cereal...

[RHB]

First you're suggesting that when my party is out of power, there will be mass round-ups and executions of people? Gosh, and I thought I had a low opinion of Republicans!!!

Listen go read a couple of books about the centuries of anti-Semitism that were the necessary antecedent to the Holocaust. The other condition was a dull witted population ready and willing to lap up right wing propaganda regarding how their nation was being taken over by racially inferior, non-Christian, immoral hordes. Any of this sound familiar? Bet your IQ has gone up already.

I wonder if the economy had anything to do with it?

[Abatis]

The SCOTUS outlawed the possession of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

You are way, way WAY over reading what was said.

You need to read Heller as a continuum of previous SCOTUS holdings on the right to arms / 2nd Amendment. Understand, "dangerous and unusual" isn't a characterization the government gets to lay claim to first, just because it doesn't think people have a "need" for that type of arm . . .

"Dangerous and unusual" is the bits and scraps left on the floor after all the protection criteria have been applied to the type of arm and each has failed. Only after the protection criteria fail is the government allowed to pick up those scraps, tape them together as an argument that the arm is "dangerous and unusual" and plead to be permitted to exercise the power it is claiming to restrict that weapon's possession and use.

It's funny really, Libs are profoundly misreading Heller as "upholding" or affirming current gun control laws; actually it was pointing out how infirm they were LOL. Heller said nothing about the constitutionality of any gun control law post Heller; only that they were "presumptively lawful" at the opinion's writing . . .

Whatever laws that had been upheld under the invalidated reasoning of the lower federal courts (post 1942), have been rendered infirm.

[Grindelwald]

Abatis--

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

The Supreme Court makes it pretty clear. "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited." Black and white.

[Abatis]

Abatis--

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The Supreme Court makes it pretty clear. "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited." Black and white.

I'm not saying the right is unlimited or absolute.

I am arguing that the government does posses powers to restrict the possession and use of arms that are not protected under the 2nd Amendment applying the criteria established by SCOTUS which is what your quote says.

"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Protection criteria applied first, (“in common use at the time” among others), if that fails, "dangerous and unusual" can be argued . . .

"Assault weapons" meet all the protection criteria thus can not be deemed "dangerous and unusual", the right to possess and use is affirmed and the claim of government to restrict is repelled . . .