ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[OforOppression]

h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0

h0bama

[OforOppression]

<+hitchens_office> OMG
<+hitchens_office> MAGAZINE SIZE LIMIT
<+hitchens_office> I CANT SHOOT MORE THAN TEN KIDS WITHOUT RELOADING

[Hitchens]

fuckin bullshit gotta reload everytime i shoot ten kids

[fullmetalcoxman]

Because gun control works so well, right Chicago? Oh wait.

[Hitchens]

Thanks a lot Diggles. You ruined my post. Going to go buy a gun now.

[OforOppression]

Thanks a lot Diggles. You ruined my post. Going to go buy a gun now.

IM 18 NOW HITCHENS YOU CAN'T SHOOT ME I'M NOT A CHILD

[Hitchens]

Thanks, Obama.

[Swish]

<+hitchens_office> OMG
<+hitchens_office> MAGAZINE SIZE LIMIT
<+hitchens_office> I CANT SHOOT MORE THAN TEN KIDS WITHOUT RELOADING

Just buy more guns so you don't need to reload until 50+ are dead, or make them line up with heads touching...

I worry about myself sometimes.

[Swish]

What would Breivik do?

[OforOppression]

Thanks, Obama.

http://i.imgur.com/sgLBh.gif

[Sickle]

Ban on assault weapons = all gun stores are sold out of AR-15s

Great way to boost the economy OBAMAHAHAHA

[OforOppression]

http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/cm-36539-050c0fdf39c06d.gif

[OforOppression]

http://i.imgur.com/n5NSS.gif

[Ephirith]

b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but criminalz can still gets gunz

that means we should saturate amurica with gunz

GOD BLESS AMERICA THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

SEMPER FI

GOD BLESS THE CHICAGO BEARS

[Hitchens]

All those people who thought today would result in revolution are going to have to eat all those MREs they bought.

[OforOppression]

naez literally quivering in a corner

[patriot1776]

good job celebrating tyranny worse than nazi germany

you people are dumb as hell

[OforOppression]

nazi germany didnt let you own most firearms and a modest clip magazine size like generous lord obama

[Hitchens]

Naez's picture:

http://i47.tinypic.com/j81c49.jpg

[Sirken]

FUN FACT: Laws only affect people that follow laws.

[Glitch]

This feature better not be implemented in GTA V

[Hitchens]

FUN FACT: Laws only affect people that follow laws.

FUN FACT: People who break laws cannot steal firearms from people that follow laws if they don't own them.

[Ephirith]

True that, guess we should remove speed limits because people are still going to speed.

Might as well make drunk driving legal too because people who are drunk don't care if it's against the law or not. Fucking nanny state trying to tell me I can't get wasted and drive down the sidewalk.

[Hitchens]

When you have reduced everything down to an absurdly meaningless slippery slope to tyranny, you should not be surprised when you become more and more marginalized.

[Daldolma]

FUN FACT: Absolutely not getting through Congress. See: grandstanding

[patriot1776]

FUN FACT: mexico has a total gun ban and the highest crime rate in the world, literally in the middle of a civil war.

[Vellatri]

FUN FACT: People who break laws cannot steal firearms from people that follow laws if they don't own them.
FUN FACT: People who break laws steal/buy firearms from people who break laws if people that follow laws don't own them.

[Hitchens]

FUN FACT: You are a cultural dinosaur.

[patriot1776]

The difference is the 2nd amendment is enshrined on hemp, thus is protected unlike drunk driving. If you are really that big of a communist/pussy, you can either go through legitimate means to remove it (ratify a new amendment), or move to a place where you can be treated like the child/slave you want to be, like North Korea.

[Ephirith]

I wake up every morning, salute the American flag, and thank God because I know there are 5,000,000 obese rednecks with assault rifles waiting to defend my freedom from the evil federal government

[Cymeon]

i just locked down four 15 rounch glock 20 10mm magazines :)

[Strifer]

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wt1Zy_ASNyA?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wt1Zy_ASNyA?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Arclyte]

Now we sit back and watch as absolutely nothing changes

[Massive Marc]

I dunno, I look at it this way. Criminals are going to get guns (duh) but not all people that go on shooting sprees are criminals.. some are just people that fucking snap and those are the people I DONT want to have access to guns.

[vaylorie]

Now we sit back and watch as absolutely nothing changes

this

[Daldolma]

This is Obama showing that he means business in Term 2. No more moderate, no more pussyfooting.

And that's all it is. It's a show. This proposal will never get through Congress and isn't intended to. It sets an absurd starting point from which "compromise" can still net exactly what he wants.

[LizardNecro]

FUN FACT: Laws only affect people that follow laws.

Does this also apply to p99 raiding guilds? :D

[finalgrunt]

Does this also apply to p99 raiding guilds? :D

Careful here, assault weapons aren't the only things subject to potential bans ;)

[Arclyte]

obama u silly goose

[Relapse2]

no1 cares about you obama

http://i47.tinypic.com/sqrsbm.jpg

[OforOppression]

nice modified airsoft guns and possibly real pistol

[Mortiiss]

FUN FACT: Laws only affect people that follow laws.

[Relapse2]

thx

http://i48.tinypic.com/69orcn.jpg

[Mortiiss]

FUN FACT: People who break laws cannot steal firearms from people that follow laws if they don't own them.

Yeah, because that law is going to make all guns that aren't an assault weapon or have a 10 round clip limit disappear off the market.

LOL.

[Mortiiss]

I dunno, I look at it this way. Criminals are going to get guns (duh) but not all people that go on shooting sprees are criminals.. some are just people that fucking snap and those are the people I DONT want to have access to guns.

This makes sense, unlike the other stupid posts in this thread. I can agree with this point.

[Relapse2]

http://i49.tinypic.com/14mqnmo.jpg

[finalgrunt]

Were these bought with RMT money? :p

[patriot1776]

You liberals will never steal our freedom

[Relapse2]

do not think i can answer such question here

[Relapse2]

recently the Eqmac community compared me to the sandy hook murderer for touching their precious dragon. Do you guys think that deems me unfit to own a firearm?

[OforOppression]

i'm gonna need to ask why your fast-mag isn't dual sided like in call of duty

[patriot1776]

nope

[philbertpk]

I work for a massive firearm company. This is pretty scary. Goddamn fucking with my money yo. not cool my blackman pres.

[philbertpk]

We sold 876 Ar15s and 400+ Hi cap pistols in 2 weeks along with 20,000 30 round mags. this shit is cray

[Knuckle]

******** width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wx9GxXYKx_8?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Knuckle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358373942

[Relapse2]

i have to be honest i do not watch TV when it comes to news. So when those fags compared me to Sandy Hook, i had to google it. Then i came up on that video i was intrigued.

[patriot1776]

We sold 876 Ar15s and 400+ Hi cap pistols in 2 weeks along with 20,000 30 round mags. this shit is cray

need lower shipped to ca

[Goofier]

We sold 876 Ar15s and 400+ Hi cap pistols in 2 weeks along with 20,000 30 round mags. this shit is cray

Waiting on a LWRC PSD now, feel free to throw a few mags this way :)

[Crazrum]

I work for a massive firearm company. This is pretty scary. Goddamn fucking with my money yo. not cool my blackman pres.

Shouldn't you be at work making more guns? We're on a deadline here.

[Breeziyo]

FUN FACT: Laws only affect people that follow laws.

I am entirely unsure of whether I should don some safety gloves so I don't cut myself when I shake your hand because of how edgy you are, or if this is just a comment on how a law like this won't stop black market trading of assault weapons outside of the 10 round clip limit.

[Swish]

Everything going to shit, buy gold, silver, precious gems... recognised global currency with a limited supply.

I wonder what Mickey Mouse selection you'll get for a President at the NEXT election? Hilary Clinton vs Sarah Palin?

[Knuckle]

hillary clinton = elected
Me = Germany/Europe/Canada

[Ephirith]

sarah palin = elected
Me = Germany/Europe/Canada

fixed for other side of the aisle

[OforOppression]

hil-dog 2016

[Humerox]

FUN FACT: mexico has a total gun ban and the highest crime rate in the world, literally in the middle of a civil war.

It's not a civil war...it's a war of the drug cartels against the government. Caused by us.

One of the greatest tragedies in history and it's because of the United States.

[Humerox]

...it is business of drug consumption in the U.S. is the cause of the violence and social issues in Mexico. Nearly all the money and most of the weaponry of the cartels are from the United States.

come at me, bro.

[Autotune]

legalize all drugs in america, save mexico!

[patriot1776]

...it is business of drug consumption in the U.S. is the cause of the violence and social issues in Mexico. Nearly all the money and most of the weaponry of the cartels are from the United States.

come at me, bro.

yea no shit our president and attorney general have the receipt

[Humerox]

i see wut u did there

[Psionide]

FUN FACT: Ban on assault weapons already in place in Aurora and Newton. Both shooters still used assault weapons....

[Harmonium]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/206017_10151197312770800_1722665793_n.jpg

[Humerox]

FUN FACT: Ban on assault weapons already in place in Aurora and Newton. Both shooters still used assault weapons....

FUN FACT: Make laws universal and enforce them without to political brown-nosing and there would be fewer idiotic arguments like that one.

FUN FACT: Obama won't need Congress, nukkas.

Executive Orders (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-on-gun-control-impeachment.html)

Impeachment? Try it, lol.

[Humerox]

In his renewed push for gun control, President Obama released 23 executive orders to reduce gun violence this morning.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/president-obamas-missing-executive-order-on-gun-control-20130116#ixzz2ICU1rMQW
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[vaylorie]

Obama: Congress, please oh please ban some guns. Did you see these kids I have with me?

Congress: No thanks.

[Autotune]

In his renewed push for gun control, President Obama released 23 executive orders to reduce gun violence this morning.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/president-obamas-missing-executive-order-on-gun-control-20130116#ixzz2ICU1rMQW
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

executive orders only apply to his shitbag government agencies, not the populous.

He'd get impeached for trying to Eorder the people, which is why nothing he Eordered directly impacts them.

All the other shit will have to go through congress where Obama will get bitch slapped for his stupid fucking ideas.

[Clark]

People who own guns should have to undergo weapons training, full mental examination, and full background check imho. Large portion of people wanting to posess firearms are uneducated or criminals.

[Humerox]

executive orders only apply to his shitbag government agencies, not the populous.

He'd get impeached for trying to Eorder the people, which is why nothing he Eordered directly impacts them.

All the other shit will have to go through congress where Obama will get bitch slapped for his stupid fucking ideas.

It's the gun lobby that's gonna get bitch-slapped this time around.

Impeachment? Try it, rotflmao.

[vaylorie]

It's the gun lobby that's gonna get bitch-slapped this time around.

Impeachment? Try it, rotflmao.

You're a moron. Obama did everything he could do. He politely asked congress to take action and he ordered his executive agencies to look into some shit. Essentially, welcome to nothing changing. Please look over here while I wave my hand.

You think you will get an 'assault' weapons ban and magazine cap through congress?

[Autotune]

You're a moron. Obama did everything he could do. He politely asked congress to take action and he ordered his executive agencies to look into some shit. Essentially, welcome to nothing changing. Please look over here while I wave my hand.

You think you will get an 'assault' weapons ban and magazine cap through congress?

Also, from things I've seen so far, existing magazines (and possibly the rifles themselves) will be grandfathered in.

Basically, Obama put in a fail safe to make himself look good just in case he can't actually ban anything he can make it seem like he has.

[Humerox]

You're a moron. Obama did everything he could do. He politely asked congress to take action and he ordered his executive agencies to look into some shit. Essentially, welcome to nothing changing. Please look over here while I wave my hand.

You think you will get an 'assault' weapons ban and magazine cap through congress?

We'll see.

[Humerox]

This guy is who I picture talking when I see most of the arguments here:

Alex Jones (http://gawker.com/5974020/1776-will-commence-again-if-you-try-to-take-our-firearms-watch-alex-jones-lose-his-mind-on-piers-morgans-show)

[Psionide]

FUN FACT: Make laws universal and enforce them without to political brown-nosing and there would be fewer idiotic arguments like that one.

FUN FACT: Obama won't need Congress, nukkas.

Executive Orders (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-on-gun-control-impeachment.html)

Impeachment? Try it, lol.

SO basically your saying get rid of State law and then also to get rid of congress?

[Humerox]

SO basically your saying get rid of State law and then also to get rid of congress?

Don't believe I am.

[Psionide]

It's just funny how just a little while ago nobody was talking about gun control and we just had a presidential election. More shootings happen every day except when it happens in nice areas then it's time to talk about doing something

[Humerox]

When 20 six and seven year-old kids are mowed down while watching Phonics Football Players or something...yeah, it's time to start talking about doing something.

[Lexical]

When 20 six and seven year-old kids are mowed down while watching Phonics Football Players or something...yeah, it's time to start talking about doing something.

I don't think many would argue against that something needs to be done. I personally am for stricter background checks, government tracked weapons, and psychological reviews of people wanting guns, but the AR ban just seems unnecessary to me. If they do get banned, I honestly would not be hurting in the morning. I am actually just amazed by the mass amount of ignorance from both sides and how no one is listening to each other.

[Kagatob]

I don't think many would argue against that something needs to be done. I personally am for stricter background checks, government tracked weapons, and psychological reviews of people wanting guns, but the AR ban just seems unnecessary to me. If they do get banned, I honestly would not be hurting in the morning. I am actually just amazed by the mass amount of ignorance from both sides and how no one is listening to each other.

Welcome to every debate in this country ever.

[Breeziyo]

I don't think many would argue against that something needs to be done. I personally am for stricter background checks, government tracked weapons, and psychological reviews of people wanting guns, but the AR ban just seems unnecessary to me. If they do get banned, I honestly would not be hurting in the morning. I am actually just amazed by the mass amount of ignorance from both sides and how no one is listening to each other.

+1

[OforOppression]

smoke trees fuck beezys

[Humerox]

I am actually just amazed by the mass amount of ignorance from both sides and how no one is listening to each other.

There's only one side unwilling to compromise. You have two extremes...one is to ban all guns and the other is to not regulate anything at all for any reason.

I'd even put an "assault-style" weapons ban on the shelf if they were restricted to premises-only, photo-licenses and training with certification were required, yearly registration was mandated, stiff fines for unsafe storage were put in place...

[Kagatob]

There's only one side unwilling to compromise. You have two extremes...one is to ban all guns and the other is to not regulate anything at all for any reason.

I'd even put an "assault-style" weapons ban on the shelf if they were restricted to premises-only, photo-licenses and training with certification were required, yearly registration was mandated, stiff fines for unsafe storage were put in place...

You mean like in Norway, where it's required for every single citizen to own a gun? The country with the absolute lowest lvl of gun related crime on the planet? Like that country?

[Humerox]

You mean like in Norway, where it's required for every single citizen to own a gun? The country with the absolute lowest lvl of gun related crime on the planet? Like that country?

If you're condoning Norway's gun legislation and saying we should emulate it...I'm on board!

;)

[Kagatob]

If you're condoning Norway's gun legislation and saying we should emulate it...I'm on board!

;)

This is exactly what I'm doing, yes. *high five*

[Raavak]

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/01/sandy-hook-hoax-newtown-truthers-video-goes-viral.html

[Vellatri]

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/01/sandy-hook-hoax-newtown-truthers-video-goes-viral.html
IMHO, a lot of things in that video are just nitpicking and easily explained. However, the questions about types of weapons used seem very legitimate. The Robbie Parker thing is weird too.

[Raavak]

IMHO, a lot of things in that video are just nitpicking and easily explained. However, the questions about types of weapons used seem very legitimate. The Robbie Parker thing is weird too.
I agree, a lot of it could be explained. There was alot of confusion at the time and people reporting wrong things. It always happens. And I think that medical examiner is just a blowhard and an idiot. There's a couple things that might warrant me looking more into them, though.

[Harmonium]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/207627_473694532687818_1782579533_n.jpg

[Lanuven]

The action committee led by the President and his staff see this as an "Assault Rifle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10

So then what do you call this ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A_rifle

Do you know what the difference in these two models of rifles are ?

Collapsible or folding stock , and a pistol grip.

Under the old AWB the M1A rifle was considered banned because it was shipped with a boyonet lug. NOT because it has the capability of holding a 30 round magazine, or was semi-automatic.

These are the people who are running this country at the moment. Bunch of dumb asses.

Btw..Im against any kind of limitations on freedom this administration is trying to enforce. Dont get this post wrong, just trying to show an example of what they are trying to impose on the nation with the term "Assault Rifle."

[OforOppression]

do you know how fucking hard it would be to massacre a bunch of civvies with a M1A

http://i.imgur.com/ajyDT.gif

[patriot1776]

dont tell us about your sick fantasies tell a doctor

[OforOppression]

I think we should go back to flintlocke pistols

[Greegon]

Hilary Clinton vs Sarah Palin?

MOVING

[OforOppression]

hil-dog 2016

[patriot1776]

http://i.imgur.com/FH9M8.gif

[Lanuven]

do you know how fucking hard it would be to massacre a bunch of civvies with a M1A

http://i.imgur.com/ajyDT.gif

Not sure at what your getting at here. Do you know what your talking about even ?

[Humerox]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/379318_473100352725649_1064950268_n.jpg

[OforOppression]

more like "i'm a gun nut who is retarded"

i can typing

[Jarnauga]

i think everyone should be allowed to use MQ/ShowEQ.

I mean cheaters are not gonna follow the rules anyway so we might as well all use it so we can have equal chances for mobs.

Who you gonna trust to ban cheaters ? Sirken ? really ?

:D

[finalgrunt]

i think everyone should be allowed to use MQ/ShowEQ.

I mean cheaters are not gonna follow the rules anyway so we might as well all use it so we can have equal chances for mobs.

Who you gonna trust to ban cheaters ? Sirken ? really ?

:D

Good analogy :D

[fishingme]

i think everyone should be allowed to use MQ/ShowEQ.

I mean cheaters are not gonna follow the rules anyway so we might as well all use it so we can have equal chances for mobs.

Who you gonna trust to ban cheaters ? Sirken ? really ?

:D

Well, if accounts are only getting flagged then it looks like cheating is allowed

[yaaaflow]

hillary clinton = elected
Me = Germany/Europe/Canada

If this fairly moderate politician gets elected then I will move to one of this socialist nations to escape her reign of terror, all of which are far more left wing and have far more strict gun control!

Literally conservative logic.

[sillymonster]

FUN FACT: Laws only affect people that follow laws.

er. not really.

[Arclyte]

lol @ this guy

here's how a "civi" shoots an M1 for the first time in ~7 months

http://i.imgur.com/oYojT.jpg

Do they even waste money on weekend warriors at the range?

[Arclyte]

100 yards btw

[OforOppression]

< confirmed civvie

Confirmed can shoot very well

Confirmed should not have semi autos

[cyryllis]

so you should only have bolt action single shot ?derp

[finalgrunt]

100 yards btw

Why training from so far when you can point blank kill kids in a school, I don't get it. :confused:

[OforOppression]

so you should only have bolt action single shot ?derp

ya, if ppl are as good a shot as they claim that should be plenty enough

[vaylorie]

Confirmed: Only mentally challenged, basement dwelling virgins still posting in this thread.


(apparently myself included)

[EchoedTruth]

hillary clinton = elected
Me = Germany/Europe/Canada

Please do. Then when you get there and realize all of the above have national healthcare, strict gun laws, and are far more socialist than the U.S./Obama... lulz will ensue. :)

[Breeziyo]

< confirmed civvie

Confirmed can shoot very well

Confirmed should not have semi autos

im pretty good at headshots in battlefield so it cant be that hard irl let's do this breeziyo confirmed expert shot irl

also i think you're missing something. it's not banning semi automatic weapons

[OforOppression]

i took riflery in high school dawgy dawg

thats what the assburgers in this thread think

<Wa11ace> {Ò,ó} punda

[Breeziyo]

i hear rogues are going to not be as bad next patch, punda.

thinking of resubbing to play with a couple friends

oh man why am i doing this to myself wow is the cancer

[OforOppression]

rogues gettin major buffs dawg

Doublestep#1190

[Pringles]

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -- Adolf Hitler


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler

[OforOppression]

"Smoke Weed Every Day" -- Stalin

[patriot1776]

yall dum

[Tarathiel]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/312321_215273411931035_950954632_n.jpg

[Harmonium]

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7PqAk-qianA?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7PqAk-qianA?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[patriot1776]

if you scared go 2 church homie

[Alawen]

Soon you will be able to just download and 3d print yourself a hand gun, scarey shit.

Soon you will be able to blow your fucking hand off trying to shoot a piece of shit you made with an $800 3D printer.

[patriot1776]

http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/fss/340ab43dfea561b720b888b65a4fd7ad

[Harmonium]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14808_10151422542971217_1467121166_n.jpg

I love how when terrorists hit us on 9/11 we are told not to treat all Muslims like they are terrorists.

But when a deranged gunman strikes we go after all gun owners.

[Harmonium]

http://i.imgur.com/PrmTiTk.jpg

Thank God.

[Harmonium]

http://i.imgur.com/CIGOd.jpg

[Humerox]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/14808_10151422542971217_1467121166_n.jpg

I love how when terrorists hit us on 9/11 we are told not to treat all Muslims like they are terrorists.

But when a deranged gunman strikes we go after all gun owners.


http://www.thisisyourconscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/scared-man.jpg

[Humerox]

http://i.imgur.com/CIGOd.jpg


Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are “arms,” but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction? If the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons.

[Harmonium]

Everyone knows that rifles, pistols, and shotguns are “arms,” but what about other weapons like clubs, knives, swords, artillery, bombs, missiles, or weapons of mass destruction? If the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons.

retarded assertion is retarded.

[Humerox]

retarded assertion is retarded.

Retarded assertion is fact.

[Humerox]

So...Mr. Ad Hominem.

Define "arms" for us.

[Harmonium]

If the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we would all have the right to own nuclear weapons.

Retarded assertion is fact.

What is a fact exactly, that the courts don't interpret the second amendment like the first amendment?

derp

[Humerox]

What is a fact exactly, that the courts don't interpret the second amendment like the first amendment?

derp

Refer back to my question, sir.

Define "arms".

[Halfelfbard]

God ur retarded. Humerox, u didn't pass Civics in high school did you?

[Humerox]

Or rather...define "arms" for us as relates to the US Constitution.

[Humerox]

God ur retarded. Humerox, u didn't pass Civics in high school did you?

Then you give me a definition of "arms" as it relates to the US Constitution, sir.

[Halfelfbard]

Everything can be answered by one very simple word. Permits.

[Humerox]

Everything can be answered by one very simple word. Permits.

Doesn't answer my question. And what you just said supports anti-assault weaponry theorem, sir.

Someone who isd pro-gun answer my question. please.

[Humerox]

My question:

Or rather...define "arms" for us as relates to the US Constitution.

[Humerox]

C'mon guys. Tell me what the Constitution means by "arms". I'm waiting...

[Halfelfbard]

i am pro gun all the way man, i even own a few...but an assault weapon i will never need, i am not in the armed forces, or a police officer.

And unless there is a war coming to Wisconsin, not like im gonna hunt with a, LOL assault weapon.

[Halfelfbard]

And the define ur probally wanting is something with militia's, and the ability to defend yourself if the army isn't there.

[Humerox]

i am pro gun all the way man, i even own a few...but an assault weapon i will never need, i am not in the armed forces, or a police officer.

And unless there is a war coming to Wisconsin, not like im gonna hunt with a, LOL assault weapon.

I'm with ya, bro. I'm pro-gun and anti assault-style weapons meself.

I need one of these extreme right-wingers to explain this to me.

What arms can you bear according to the Constitution?

[Halfelfbard]

Well i did find something to clear this up i guess.

http://idiotsguides.com/static/quickguides/history/understanding_the_right_to_bear_arms.html

[Harmonium]

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense." Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.

The most clearly protected firearm is the rifle, the use of which for self-defense even in urban areas is protected by the second amendment "guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms."

The modern descendent of the musket, the rifle is the classic militia firearm. The shotgun is also protected by the second amendment. The short-barreled shotgun is the descendent of the blunderbuss, a classic home defense arm, in contrast with the long-barreled hunting shotgun known traditionally as the fowling piece. While it may not be within judicial notice that the short-barreled shotgun is a militia arm protected by the second amendment, such an arm has been factually determined to fall within a state constitution protecting the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for their common defense."

The arm most commonly possessed for self-defense is the pistol, due to its ease of storage, carriage, and accessibility. "'Pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and ... the right to bear such arms ... cannot be infringed." Its short barrel makes it difficult for an assailant to grab, and its size, weight, and simple mechanism makes its use viable for women, the elderly, and the handicapped. Smaller pistols have particular utility for smaller people. The smallest handgun designed by Smith & Wesson "was such a small revolver that it was nicknamed the Ladysmith, since it seemed to be more suitable for a woman's small hand." The relatively high cost of rifles as compared to pistols suggests that a ban on ownership or possession of low-caliber handguns would effectively negate any right of the poor to bear firearms for their self-defense.

There has been little scholarship concerning whether certain edged weapons and blunt instruments are "arms" in a constitutional sense. The knife is one of mankind's oldest tools and weapons. Pocketknives were in use when the second amendment was adopted. It is questionable whether "switchblade" knives with the modern convenience of a spring-assisted blade may be banned any more than could modern firearms which no longer rely on a flintlock mechanism. The staff and the club, mankind's oldest defensive weapons, are clearly constitutionally protected.

Since "arms" under the second amendment are those which an individual is capable of bearing, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and other heavy ordnances are not constitutionally protected. Nor are other dangerous and unusual weapons, such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, and other devices which, while capable of being carried by hand, have never been commonly possessed for self-defense. Blunt and edged instruments and firearms are capable of being used against a violent assailant in such a manner as not to endanger the innocent. In contrast, explosive devices may be incapable of pinpointing an aggressor, thus harming the innocent as well as the guilty.

this is why grenades, and explosives in general (like your assertion that was should have nukes) aren't authorized for civilians to bear.

[Humerox]

[QUOTE=Harmonium;818969probably was intended[/QUOTE]

Probably was intended doesn't answer the question. What arms does the constitution say we all have the right to bear?

[Humerox]

probably was intended

Try this again. Probably was intended doesn't answer the question. What arms am I allowed to bear under the Constitution?

[Harmonium]

Lol your a fucking idiot

[Humerox]

this is why grenades, and explosives in general (like your assertion that was should have nukes) aren't authorized for civilians to bear.

Destructive grenades--frags, incendiaries, white phosphorus--are a totally different story. They are classed as Destructive Devices. To get one you need to file a form, get approval from the sheriff, get fingerprinted, go through a background check and pay a $200 tax for every grenade you want.

Current federal laws allow destructive devices.

[Humerox]

Lol your a fucking idiot

Answer my fucking question, lol.

[Humerox]

Try this again. Probably was intended doesn't answer the question. What arms am I allowed to bear under the Constitution?

That question.

[Lexical]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So anything that would make the militia modern. I guess that means the type of guns they are selling to African warlords.

[Humerox]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So anything that would make the militia modern. I guess that means the type of guns they are selling to African warlords.

That's reading into and interpreting the Constitution. According to pro-"any"-gun people, we're not supposed to do that.

Still doesn't answer my question, Lex. What "arms" am I allowed to bear?

I say the Second Amendment says I can have this. I can "bear" it and it will help me fight those F-16's and Black Ops heelichoppers when the government invades. The Afghans use 'em...proof that we ken hide in them thar caves and legitimately ward off the pinko commie gayboys. Imagine the surprise on the faces of that 15-member street gang that invades my house and gets a faceful of :

FIM-92 Stinger


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG/800px-FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG

[qety20]

do you know how fucking hard it would be to massacre a bunch of civvies with a M1A

http://i.imgur.com/ajyDT.gif

With proper training. not at all.

[Harmonium]

That's reading into and interpreting the Constitution. According to pro-"any"-gun people, we're not supposed to do that.

Still doesn't answer my question, Lex. What "arms" am I allowed to bear?

I say the Second Amendment says I can have this. I can "bear" it and it will help me fight those F-16's and Black Ops heelichoppers when the government invades. The Afghans use 'em...proof that we ken hide in them thar caves and legitimately ward off the pinko commie gayboys. Imagine the surprise on the faces of that 15-member street gang that invades my house and gets a faceful of :

FIM-92 Stinger


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG/800px-FIM-92_Stinger_USMC.JPG


Nice straw man fallacy. I think you are the only one trying to say that the second amendment means we can have FIM-92 Stingers.

Please display a higher level of comprehension for continued discourse.

[patriot1776]

DONT LIKE IT MOVE

[Humerox]

Nice straw man fallacy. I think you are the only one trying to say that the second amendment means we can have FIM-92 Stingers.

Please display a higher level of comprehension for continued discourse.

Why is it a straw-man?

Why doesn't the Constitution allow me to have whatever "arms" I want? Am I supposed to infer that legitimate legislation should define what "arms" are reasonable?

Isn't that infringement?

Show me what "arms" I'm allowed to bear under the Constitution.

[qety20]

I'm with ya, bro. I'm pro-gun and anti assault-style weapons meself.

I need one of these extreme right-wingers to explain this to me.

What arms can you bear according to the Constitution?

Welp im going to sound like the crazy man here but...lets give this a shot. Considering the 2nd amendment was made for the possibility of people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Anything that a solider can operate or carry is "arms". I work for a company that manufactures machine guns. ( mostly for movies and rich dudes who want something to take to a private range to blow shit up with.) I do not have the money to and probably never will but the company owner has real "assault weapons". Full auto weapons,rpg's,flashbangs,grenades,belt fed machine guns. and had an up armored vehicle ( economy sucks man gotta sell some shit). He did all the paperwork right with ATF and it is totally legal. He doesn't think that the government is coming tomorrow to take his food and water. He just has them because he can. Now the flipside to this is. If america did turn into a tyrannical government. Like they were coming for everything you own its ours now type. It wouldn't work. at least not in the hands of soldiers. Because the individual I spoke of and myself are both current service members. and everyone I know in the military feels the same way. If we receive the order to do horrible things to Americans. with no justification. We will take all of our government funded equipment. and head east. and that would be the end of it. So to answer your question as to what are "arms". A piece of equipment that a individual could use to be on a equal fighting field with any foreign or domestic government. ( I know your all going to dub me as a crazy man but please understand I am actually the guy who is trying to be level headed here. )

[Harmonium]

I made a very articulate post about the definition of "arms". if the word "probably" causes your brain to cease functioning, then try and figure out a way to pretend it isn't there to be able to see the clear meaning presented in the text.

http://i.imgur.com/UlrJa.jpg

[patriot1776]

banning assault weapons dum cuz they the best for hunting, home defense, and tyrannical governments. Basically every reason we possibly have the 2nd amendment

[Humerox]

Welp im going to sound like the crazy man here but...lets give this a shot. Considering the 2nd amendment was made for the possibility of people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Anything that a solider can operate or carry is "arms".

Now we're getting somewhere.

I'll get back to this in a minute.

[Humerox]

I made a very articulate post about the definition of "arms". if the word "probably" causes your brain to cease functioning, then try and figure out a way to pretend it isn't there to be able to see the clear meaning presented in the text.

No question that your post was articulate. However, the definition of "arms" didn't come from the Constitution, nor does it tell me what "arms" I can or can't have.

You said that grenades and other destructive weapons were disallowed...yet they are not. You can legally own bazookas, tanks, and all kinds of other things people assume you can't.

My point is that the Constitution does not state what "arms" you are allowed to carry although it's clear that whatever those "arms" are the right to carry them is unquestionable.

So from a Constitutional standpoint I can carry a FIM-92 Stinger, and so can you. From a Constitutional standpoint we can carry a suitcase nuclear weapon. Prove to me that the Constitution doesn't allow this, and that it doesn't guarantee the individual right to have these weapons.

[Faron]

Why is it a straw-man?

Why doesn't the Constitution allow me to have whatever "arms" I want? Am I supposed to infer that legitimate legislation should define what "arms" are reasonable?

Isn't that infringement?

Show me what "arms" I'm allowed to bear under the Constitution.

Yes we get your point. . . Obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere between firearms that are practical for the general public to own and those that are not. The debate is where. Some say that line is at walmart rifles with plastic addons that makes them look assaulty, others disagree. "Why don't you interpret laws 100% word-for-word??" isn't really an argument, it's just an attempt to look witty.

[Humerox]

Welp im going to sound like the crazy man here but...lets give this a shot. Considering the 2nd amendment was made for the possibility of people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Anything that a solider can operate or carry is "arms".

And that's just if you have a narrow definition of "arms".

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

But I digress. Furthermore, The National Firearms Act of 1934 is illegal, if we are to presume that any legislation against the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

[Humerox]

"Why don't you interpret laws 100% word-for-word??" isn't really an argument, it's just an attempt to look witty.

OK...so why does any attempt to legislate assault-style weapons get the Second Amendment argument?

It's not an attempt to look witty. It's a valid question and so far no one except gety20 is on the right track.

[Faron]

While we're at it, the entire existence of the FCC is violating the right of free speech. I want my local morning radio hacks to drop F bombs until lunch.

inb4 siriusxm

[qety20]

I made a very articulate post about the definition of "arms". if the word "probably" causes your brain to cease functioning, then try and figure out a way to pretend it isn't there to be able to see the clear meaning presented in the text.

http://i.imgur.com/UlrJa.jpg

You I like you..

[Humerox]

Obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere between firearms that are practical for the general public to own and those that are not. The debate is where.

Yup. That's my position.

It's not the position of the Alex Jones crowd...and it's they I want to answer my question.

What "arms" do I...or you...have the right to bear under the Constitution?

Before anybody goes foaming at the mouth about second-amendment rights they need to understand that the second amendment ESPECIALLY since Heller, does not make a provision of what those rights are. The second amendment made much more sense in that respect when applied to militias...which several people have already brought up.

The Court erred in Heller...now we have to legislate to fix it.

[patriot1776]

any firearm

[qety20]

any firearm

You I like you to..

[Humerox]

they knew the word "firearm" in 1776 bro. they started using the term in the 1500's.

why doesn't the Constitution say "firearm"?

[Harmonium]

they knew the word "firearm" in 1776 bro. they started using the term in the 1500's.

why doesn't the Constitution say "firearm"?

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense." Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.

The most clearly protected firearm is the rifle, the use of which for self-defense even in urban areas is protected by the second amendment "guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms."

The modern descendent of the musket, the rifle is the classic militia firearm. The shotgun is also protected by the second amendment. The short-barreled shotgun is the descendent of the blunderbuss, a classic home defense arm, in contrast with the long-barreled hunting shotgun known traditionally as the fowling piece. While it may not be within judicial notice that the short-barreled shotgun is a militia arm protected by the second amendment, such an arm has been factually determined to fall within a state constitution protecting the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for their common defense."

The arm most commonly possessed for self-defense is the pistol, due to its ease of storage, carriage, and accessibility. "'Pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and ... the right to bear such arms ... cannot be infringed." Its short barrel makes it difficult for an assailant to grab, and its size, weight, and simple mechanism makes its use viable for women, the elderly, and the handicapped. Smaller pistols have particular utility for smaller people. The smallest handgun designed by Smith & Wesson "was such a small revolver that it was nicknamed the Ladysmith, since it seemed to be more suitable for a woman's small hand." The relatively high cost of rifles as compared to pistols suggests that a ban on ownership or possession of low-caliber handguns would effectively negate any right of the poor to bear firearms for their self-defense.

There has been little scholarship concerning whether certain edged weapons and blunt instruments are "arms" in a constitutional sense. The knife is one of mankind's oldest tools and weapons. Pocketknives were in use when the second amendment was adopted. It is questionable whether "switchblade" knives with the modern convenience of a spring-assisted blade may be banned any more than could modern firearms which no longer rely on a flintlock mechanism. The staff and the club, mankind's oldest defensive weapons, are clearly constitutionally protected.

Since "arms" under the second amendment are those which an individual is capable of bearing, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and other heavy ordnances are not constitutionally protected. Nor are other dangerous and unusual weapons, such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, and other devices which, while capable of being carried by hand, have never been commonly possessed for self-defense. Blunt and edged instruments and firearms are capable of being used against a violent assailant in such a manner as not to endanger the innocent. In contrast, explosive devices may be incapable of pinpointing an aggressor, thus harming the innocent as well as the guilty.

this is why grenades, and explosives in general (like your assertion that was should have nukes) aren't authorized for civilians to bear.

[Humerox]

But if you don't believe me ask old George...

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences (sic) and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.


George Washington
First President of the United States

[Harmonium]

But if you don't believe me ask old George...

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences (sic) and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.


George Washington
First President of the United States

I think these were examples of arms, and not a definition to the exclusion of all else.

[Humerox]

Second time you've posted that argument Harm.

It does a good job of saying what someone thinks the Constitution says. But the Constitution doesn't say that.

[Humerox]

The article was pointing out that the founding fathers damn well knew what "firearms" were and chose not to include that word in the second amendment.

JFC.

[Faron]

The article was pointing out that the founding fathers damn well knew what "firearms" were and chose not to include that word in the second amendment.

JFC.

They said arms because it includes more weapons than just firearms. I don't understand why we are talking about this. We're a couple of posts from someone copypasting a dictionary entry, which pretty much means the thread is dead.

[Humerox]

And Justice Scalia trumps the Oregon Court with:

When asked by Chris Wallace if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-
round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Justice Scalia declined to speculate. However, he did say:

'We’ll see. I mean, obviously the (Second) 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 … decided.'

[Harmonium]

It's what the Oregon Supreme Court "thinks"

It also goes on to logically address why they didn't just say "fire arms"

Because the second amendment also lets me have a knife. or a club.

the term "firearm" is too narrow for the intended use in the second amendment.

Have i broken it down enough for you or do you want to be spoon fed some more?

[Humerox]

They said arms because it includes more weapons than just firearms.

Thank you. that was what I said.

[Harmonium]

how does his assertion that

"obviously the (Second) amendment does not apply to arms that
cannot be hand-carried."

trump anything I posted?

[Humerox]

It's what the Oregon Supreme Court "thinks"

It also goes on to logically address why they didn't just say "fire arms"

Because the second amendment also lets me have a knife. or a club.

the term "firearm" is too narrow for the intended use in the second amendment.

Have i broken it down enough for you or do you want to be spoon fed some more?

And I told you what Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court thinks.

None of which tells me:

What "arms" am I allowed to bear under the Constitution.

The Oregon Court may think that's what applies to Oregon, because they say destructive devices aren't constitutionally protected when they are. Maybe people in Oregon can't use them.

[Faron]

Thank you. that was what I said.

Is someone arguing that the term "arms" doesn't also include guns? I don't even know what's going on in this thread anymore.

[Harmonium]

there is a difference, in that you posted an individuals thoughts. I posted a judiciary bodies thoughts.

So really now. what IS your point? stop beating around the bush.

[Humerox]

Nice straw man fallacy. I think you are the only one trying to say that the second amendment means we can have FIM-92 Stingers.

Please display a higher level of comprehension for continued discourse.

Let's go back to basics.

Does the Constitution prohibit me from having this weapon?

If it DOES, that means the second amendment is open to legislation and interpretation. If it DOES NOT than we have to view the second amendment as sacrosanct.

If the Constitution is OPEN to legislation, we the people have the right to decide what weapons can and can't be used...including "assault-style" weaponry.

If it ISN'T OPEN to legislation we can pretty much carry whatever the fuck we want, because the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.

Thank you Harm...and a few others, for making the actual point I wanted to make.

:)

[Harmonium]

Is someone arguing that the term "arms" doesn't also include guns? I don't even know what's going on in this thread anymore.

I think he's trying to understand what the second amendment allows him to carry beyond firearms. ie grenades, rockets, missiles, nukes et al.

[Faron]

If the Constitution is OPEN to legislation, we the people have the right to decide what weapons can and can't be used...including "assault-style" weaponry.

Of course it is, hence the term AMENDMENT.

[Harmonium]

Let's go back to basics.

Does the Constitution prohibit me from having this weapon?

If it DOES, that means the second amendment is open to legislation and interpretation. If it DOES NOT than we have to view the second amendment as sacrosanct.

If the Constitution is OPEN to legislation, we the people have the right to decide what weapons can and can't be used...including "assault-style" weaponry.

If it ISN'T OPEN to legislation we can pretty much carry whatever the fuck we want, because the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.

Thank you Harm...and a few others, for making the actual point I wanted to make.

:)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The underlined, i think is very clearly saying that this isn't up for the type of legislation that would prevent an individual from carrying any knife, gun, or pistol.

I think that if you want to destroy this country, try and disarm the people. I personally can't think of a more effective way to start a civil war.

[Humerox]

Of course it is, hence the term AMENDMENT.

Praise Lord Jesus.

:)

[Lexical]

Of course it is, hence the term AMENDMENT.
Praise Lord Jesus.

:)

Certain parts of the constitution are open for legislation. Others are not. For example, the 13th amendment. The 2nd amendment has a very strong case to fall under this group.

[Faron]

Praise Lord Jesus.

:)

But like I said, the debate is on where that line should be drawn. The Alex Joneses who want everything from sharp sticks to nukes to be legal for private use and the hipsters calling for a complete disarming are irrelevant to the actual debate as far as I'm concerned.

[Lexical]

Alex jones is such a fucking nut case..... Sorry every time I hear his name, I have the urge to post that.

[Humerox]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We have to know what we are allowed to keep and bear.

Like I said, before the Heller decision it was much less cloudy...the courts generally saw the right to bear arms as being part of a well-regulated militia.

Now that Heller has moved that distinction to an individual right, we have to decide what arms they're talking about.

If you believe the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, then I DO have a right to carry that Stinger...and a suitcase nuke for that matter. If you start bringing up court decisions you're opening the legislative door to fundamentally understanding what that term means.

As it stands...you can't show me what the Second Amendment means without attempting to use court interpretation, because it isn't clear.

[Humerox]

But like I said, the debate is on where that line should be drawn. The Alex Joneses who want everything from sharp sticks to nukes to be legal for private use and the hipsters calling for a complete disarming are irrelevant to the actual debate as far as I'm concerned.

Truth.

[Onshuu]

http://i48.tinypic.com/1045dh4.jpg

[Lexical]

We have to know what we are allowed to keep and bear.

Like I said, before the Heller decision it was much less cloudy...the courts generally saw the right to bear arms as being part of a well-regulated militia.

Now that Heller has moved that distinction to an individual right, we have to decide what arms they're talking about.

If you believe the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, then I DO have a right to carry that Stinger...and a suitcase nuke for that matter. If you start bringing up court decisions you're opening the legislative door to fundamentally understanding what that term means.

As it stands...you can't show me what the Second Amendment means without attempting to use court interpretation, because it isn't clear.
Your entire argument against the 2nd amendment is invalid since you completely forget that it is against the constitution to incite violence and disturb the peace. Carrying around a suitcase nuke in a public place, which I am assuming the problem you are trying to illustrate, definitely falls under that. Regardless, most of our weapon manufacturers are privately owned therefore private citizens are indeed carrying such armaments around. They aren't doing so in a public place though since that would be against the law. You are basically using scare tactics to make a case which makes you nothing more than a terrorist.

[Masq]

do you Americans honestly think banning assault weapons is a bad thing? I can't tell if this is a troll or not.

[Humerox]

It might be worth noting that the Jews were the only ones banned from owning guns. Nice white folks had an easier time getting guns after Hitler came to power.

Those same white folks stood by with their guns and watched while the Jews were murdered in the streets.

[Faron]

do you Americans honestly think banning assault weapons is a bad thing? I can't tell if this is a troll or not.

Why is it a good thing?

[Humerox]

Your entire argument against the 2nd amendment is invalid since you completely forget that it is against the constitution to incite violence and disturb the peace. Carrying around a suitcase nuke in a public place, which I am assuming the problem you are trying to illustrate, definitely falls under that. Regardless, most of our weapon manufacturers are privately owned therefore private citizens are indeed carrying such armaments around. They aren't doing so in a public place though since that would be against the law. You are basically using scare tactics to make a case which makes you nothing more than a terrorist.

My suitcase nuke and Stinger will be in my garage, thank you very much.

[Humerox]

do you Americans honestly think banning assault weapons is a bad thing? I can't tell if this is a troll or not.

I don't think it's a bad thing.

[Lexical]

My suitcase nuke and Stinger will be in my garage, thank you very much.

Make sure you neighbors don't find out and that you have the permits for such things or you will still be disturbing the peace :P

[Lexical]

do you Americans honestly think banning assault weapons is a bad thing? I can't tell if this is a troll or not.

I think it is more of a step in the wrong direction if anything. I don't think it would be the end of the world if they are banned, but I just think there are much better solutions to the problem.

[Humerox]

it is against the constitution to incite violence and disturb the peace.

Pray tell. I missed that part Lex...please show me where that is again?

Actually I think some of the laws that limit our 1st Amendment rights are a little out-of-line...but that's just me.

:)

[Humerox]

Make sure you neighbors don't find out and that you have the permits for such things or you will still be disturbing the peace :P

Permitz? Ve haff to have Ze permitz?

[Lexical]

Pray tell. I missed that part Lex...please show me where that is again?

Actually I think some of the laws that limit our 1st Amendment rights are a little out-of-line...but that's just me.

:)
Read up on the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

[Lexical]

Permitz? Ve haff to have Ze permitz?

jawohl.

[Lexical]

You are still a terrorist Humerox.

[Humerox]

Read up on the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

I'm particularly aware of the without due process of law part...seems like a lot of people believe that doesn't apply, though.

To be clear...I mean people read it as:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And not as it was intended to be read. You know...with the:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Part and all.

[Lexical]

Originally the Due process clause in the 14th amendment only applied to the government around the early 1900s, it was extended to private contracts and has progressively moved to protecting individual from any entities.

From it: "[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

[Lexical]

Grrrr..... hit enter too soon. The quote was in reference to Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) where the Court added "liberty" to the Due Process Clause.

[Lexical]

Regardless how I feel, you will have to understand that the assault rifle ban will be met with very heavy resistance and if you truly believe in democracy then you need to give up on that stance and try to put stronger regulation on such weapons.

[Humerox]

Regardless how I feel, you will have to understand that the assault rifle ban will be met with very heavy resistance and if you truly believe in democracy then you need to give up on that stance and try to put stronger regulation on such weapons.

I've already stated I'd be happy with a strict system over an outright ban...

Photo Id's
Yearly Registration and Fees
Insurance Requirement
Storage Requirements
Firearms Safety Course
Improved Federal Background Checks
Ammunition Legislation
Clean Police Record Requirement

just a few things to start off with....

[Lexical]

I've already stated I'd be happy with a strict system over an outright ban...


Then why do you fruitlessly try to argue for a ban?

[Humerox]

Then why do you fruitlessly try to argue for a ban?

"Fruitlessly" remains to be seen.

[Lexical]

You have yet to make a strong case for it despite splurging all over these forums so fruitlessly is the best word to describe your stance in my opinion.

[Humerox]

You have yet to make a strong case for it despite splurging all over these forums so fruitlessly is the best word to describe your stance in my opinion.

No...you have it backwards. No one has made a strong case for assault-style weapons.

[Faron]

Why assault rifles and not handguns? If you think banning a gun will reduce gun violence, then why not ban the type of gun used in the vast majority of gun crimes?

[Lexical]

No...you have it backwards. No one has made a strong case for assault-style weapons.

It has been shown via statistics and posted that banning assault weapons leads to increased amounts/rates of violent crimes. It has been shown to be one of the most protected rights in the bill of rights, and it can be easily determined that having an assault-style weapon is very useful for home defense.

Your arguments on the other hand have been scare tactics, ad hominem attacks, skewed/manipulated statistics, anecdotal evidence, and faulty logic. Every bit of evidence/argument you have made was either debunked with a little additional reading or proven to be a fallacy. It isn't your fault though. Personally, I blame the mainstream news sources that feed the populace the idea that these styles of arguments are actually good. I wouldn't be surprised if congress turned into something out of a jersey shore episode.

[Autotune]

No...you have it backwards. No one has made a strong case for assault-style weapons.

http://modernsurvivalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ruger_1022rb.jpg

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ar15.jpeg

assault-style is fucking stupid and everyone that keeps using it is fucking stupid.

The top gun and the bottom gun are in the same "assault" category in terms of destruction.

[Humerox]

Your arguments on the other hand have been scare tactics, ad hominem attacks, skewed/manipulated statistics, anecdotal evidence, and faulty logic. Every bit of evidence/argument you have made was either debunked with a little additional reading or proven to be a fallacy.

What argument?

I asked for someone to tell me what "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment. No one was able to show me what arms they were because the Constitution doesn't make it clear.

No one has proven a thing here in defense of the "right" anyone has to carry assault-style weapons.

Dismissal isn't "debunking".

[Humerox]

If you think banning a gun will reduce gun violence...

Point out where that has ever been my position.

[Humerox]

It has been shown via statistics and posted that banning assault weapons leads to increased amounts/rates of violent crimes.

That has not been shown.

[Humerox]

And I liked you better here: :p

I don't think many would argue against that something needs to be done. I personally am for stricter background checks, government tracked weapons, and psychological reviews of people wanting guns, but the AR ban just seems unnecessary to me. If they do get banned, I honestly would not be hurting in the morning. I am actually just amazed by the mass amount of ignorance from both sides and how no one is listening to each other.

[Faron]

Point out where that has ever been my position.

It's pretty much implied. What other reason is there to ban unless it's under the belief that it will reduce violence?

[hatelore]

http://modernsurvivalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ruger_1022rb.jpg

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ar15.jpeg

assault-style is fucking stupid and everyone that keeps using it is fucking stupid.

The top gun and the bottom gun are in the same "assault" category in terms of destruction.

Why are they in the same assault category? Because they both shoot a bullet packed in a casing with gunpowder? Do you even know what that top gun is? I am doubting it, there is a pretty damn big difference in the two guns you just compared.... You should stick to playing with your bb gun...

[Lexical]

What argument?

I asked for someone to tell me what "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment. No one was able to show me what arms they were because the Constitution doesn't make it clear.

No one has proven a thing here in defense of the "right" anyone has to carry assault-style weapons.

Dismissal isn't "debunking".

This stance isn't worth my time going over entirely with you again(simply because we have been through the motions and you acted with a child's rhetoric and logic), but the vagueness of the term 'arm' was deliberate. It is an umbrella term and if you can't admit that then we are done here because I know not to battle ignorance.


That has not been shown.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=93857&page=28

via statistics mind you. This does not mean proven.

And I liked you better here: :p
I am still there. I agree with many of the regulations you put forth. I don't like the gun shows where you can get extremely powerful guns with absolutely no government intervention. Those need to be stopped. I firmly believe in psychological evaluation of people purchasing guns specifically looking for proneness to anger and rage. If a person has any violent criminal record then the likelihood of them being permitted to carry a gun should be severely limited or just barred outright. More extensive background checks are also a good idea. I think we should also focus some of our efforts to dealing with those sick individuals who shot up the schools and such. However, as I stated before, I find the AR ban unnecessary and have put out reasons why I find it more of a scapegoat than an actual solution.

[Humerox]

It's pretty much implied. What other reason is there to ban unless it's under the belief that it will reduce violence?

No. I've stated my position clearly several times. I guess I haven't done it under this particular topic, so...

I believe that mass shootings like Aurora and Newtown can be stopped. In other threads I've brought up Australia (http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf) as an example, and throughout all the debate the only thing that is clear is that in the 18 years before their gun legislation in 1996, they had at least 13 massacres. Since then they've had 0.

(The Childers fire was started by a nutjob that didn't even intend on killing anyone, and Monash was actually stopped by people there when the gunman had to reload...so let's not delve into those two incidents again.)

No one has debunked that study I presented. People have dismissed it and disagreed with it, but that's it.

I never have argued that legislation effectively reduced overall gun violence. I'm inclined to believe that less guns equals less violence, but statistical data can be brought forward for both sides.

[Lexical]

If you are bringing up Australia again, then you clearly didn't read vellatri's response to the whole thing.

[OforOppression]

i make the best threads

[Humerox]

This stance isn't worth my time going over entirely with you again(simply because we have been through the motions and you acted with a child's rhetoric and logic), but the vagueness of the term 'arm' was deliberate. It is an umbrella term and if you can't admit that then we are done here because I know not to battle ignorance.

No...I'll admit I took it to the other extreme, but that was to prove a point. You still can't tell me what "arms" the Constitution says I have a right to bear, that is up to the courts and the people...and historically private rights are always balanced by public safety.

[Humerox]

If you are bringing up Australia again, then you clearly didn't read vellatri's response to the whole thing.

No...I read the study (http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847) his response came from and the only source I could find on it was:

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

[Humerox]

Howard Nemerov investigates the civil liberty of self-defense and examines the issue of gun control, resulting in his book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? He appears frequently on NRA News as their “unofficial” analyst...

Clearly our dear Howard is as unbiased as the University of Sydney.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Humerox]

i make the best threads

Actually...you do. :D

[Autotune]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=473986045970413&set=pb.265719336797086.-2207520000.1358683949&type=3&theater

Relevant link is relevant to this topic.

[Lord_Snow]

"I would love to leave my house unlocked when I go to bed at night, but lets face it people this is'nt Canada." -Justin Hammer

[patriot1776]

Fuck canada

[Vellatri]

The authors of the Constitution understood that weapon technology changes over time - they had experienced rapid advances during their own lifetimes. They understood that the Constitution may need to change over time, so they provided a process for doing so - ratification. The Supreme Court is not granted the power of ratification in the Constitution.

If Congress didn't want 2A to include nukes, they should have ratified the Constitution when nukes were created. Same with tanks, full autos, etc. They didn't, so nukes, tanks, and full autos are technically legal for private ownership. If you don't want 2A to include nukes, you should write a "WTF" letter to your Congressmen.

[OforOppression]

Because you can claim to know exactly what the authors of the second Amendment were thinking.

[Vellatri]

I don't need to guess at what they thought. They wrote it down for those of us that learned to read.