Assault weapons and large magazines ban upheld in New York and Conneticut

[M14 Shooter]

The assault is committed by a PERSON not a weapon.
Why regulate the weapon when the person is at fault?

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not?

Straw, man.

Gee, once again you prove your ignorance, and yours is not willful.
Straw Man is the name given to a logical fallacy.

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

Any and all classes of firearms fall under the definition of 'arms" as found in Miller and Heller.

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms

Like triggers, firing pins and barrels, they an integral part of the function of (most) firearms, and are thusly protected.
Amy limit on magazine size is arbitrary and capricious; arbitrary and capricious limits on rights inherently violate the constitution.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try not to present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Nosmo King]

Assault is an ACTION you moron NOT a weapon. Damn you are ignorant.

but what action does this ''assault" weapon achieve and who rightfully regulates its lawful purpose?

The assault is committed by a PERSON not a weapon.
Why regulate the weapon when the person is at fault?

Can a lunatic run up a victim count of fifteen, eighteen, twenty or more without a semi-automatic firing system and a magazine holding fifteen, eighteen or twenty rounds?

Yes.

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

This question keeps popping up. It seems that these weapons are only used by criminals. Why does a law abiding citizen need a weapon best used in the hands of a well regulated militia? What is the true useful purpose of such weapons?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not?

Straw, man.

Gee, once again you prove your ignorance, and yours is not willful.
Straw Man is the name given to a logical fallacy.

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms, thus do you agree they are not protected by the 2nd A.?

Do try, though it is not your nature, to be honest and not hypocritical.

Read the NFA of 1934...as silly as it was, it did a fair job of setting your "reasonable" limits on what weapons law-abiding citizens can be trusted by their government to own without some kind of regulation. Granted, I don't subscribe to this notion that it is government's business...unless my actions prove I am unworthy, but I am just trying to help you not ask questions that highlight your ignorance of the subject.

As far as large magazines...if they are the standard magazines designed for that firearm, they are effectively as protected as the firearm...I think Heller agreed. That said, aftermarket magazines that differ from the OEM mags in form or function can probably be considered accessories and regulated as such.

My post was directed at M14, not reasonable gun enthusiasts. I will read the NFA of '34; my only experience with an automatic weapon was one time firing a BAR from the fantail of a DD at a target that had been tossed in the Pacific.

It's not hard for me to imagine such a weapon in the hands of a lightly trained citizen under duress hitting everything but his or her designed target.

 

[LOki]

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

I think there might be a valid argument that an "arm" that is inherently indiscriminate--you know, like the fatuous "nuke" that must always be brought up--is the kind of "arm" that crosses the line regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

(Just for giggles, I'm willing to argue for personal privately owned nukes, BTW... "Yaweh of Mischief" and all. Just not right here.)

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms, thus do you agree they are not protected by the 2nd A.?

1) Magazines are essential part of firearms; in that regard they are unquestionably protected by the 2nd Amendment.

2) "Large magazine" is a term so arbitrary and subjective that it is meaningless.

Similar language ("high-capacity" magazine) is used to ban standard-capacity magazines, in an effort to infringe only upon the rights of law-abiding folks.

 

[JimH52]

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

The answer is YES.......eventually.....

As the manufacturing of assault weapons (whose only "purpose" is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time) is halted, availability EVEN FOR CRIMINALS will wane......
In the 1930s, congress stopped the manufacturing of Thompson machine guns to keep such weapons from criminals (and blacks) AND the world did not come to an end.

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

 

[M14 Shooter]

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

The answer is YES.......eventually.....

As the manufacturing of assault weapons (whose only "purpose" is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time) is halted, availability EVEN FOR CRIMINALS will wane......
In the 1930s, congress stopped the manufacturing of Thompson machine guns to keep such weapons from criminals (and blacks) AND the world did not come to an end.

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

Pull down your skirt - your willful ignorance is showing.

 

[LOki]

Assault is an ACTION you moron NOT a weapon. Damn you are ignorant.

but what action does this ''assault" weapon achieve and who rightfully regulates its lawful purpose?

The assault is committed by a PERSON not a weapon.
Why regulate the weapon when the person is at fault?

Can a lunatic run up a victim count of fifteen, eighteen, twenty or more without a semi-automatic firing system and a magazine holding fifteen, eighteen or twenty rounds?

Yes.

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

This question keeps popping up. It seems that these weapons are only used by criminals.

It seems like you're talking straight out of your ass.

Why does a law abiding citizen need a weapon best used in the hands of a well regulated militia?

The argument from (does not) need is invalid for obvious reasons. I have no idea why it is always brought up.

But......., private citizens belong to the militia--this is an indisputable fact of reality--and if the intent is that the militia be well-regulated, then it is NECESSARY that the members of the militia possess the very arms appurtenant to a well-regulated militia... that the right to keep and bear those arms not be infringed.

You're trying to pull the horse with the cart.

What is the true useful purpose of such weapons?

Shooting stuff.

 

[LOki]

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

The answer is YES.......eventually.....

As the manufacturing of assault weapons (whose only "purpose" is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time) is halted, availability EVEN FOR CRIMINALS will wane......
In the 1930s, congress stopped the manufacturing of Thompson machine guns to keep such weapons from criminals (and blacks) AND the world did not come to an end.

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Not the GOfuckingP either.

 

[Dan Daly]

Straw, man.

Gee, once again you prove your ignorance, and yours is not willful.
Straw Man is the name given to a logical fallacy.

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms, thus do you agree they are not protected by the 2nd A.?

Do try, though it is not your nature, to be honest and not hypocritical.

Read the NFA of 1934...as silly as it was, it did a fair job of setting your "reasonable" limits on what weapons law-abiding citizens can be trusted by their government to own without some kind of regulation. Granted, I don't subscribe to this notion that it is government's business...unless my actions prove I am unworthy, but I am just trying to help you not ask questions that highlight your ignorance of the subject.

As far as large magazines...if they are the standard magazines designed for that firearm, they are effectively as protected as the firearm...I think Heller agreed. That said, aftermarket magazines that differ from the OEM mags in form or function can probably be considered accessories and regulated as such.

My post was directed at M14, not reasonable gun enthusiasts. I will read the NFA of '34; my only experience with an automatic weapon was one time firing a BAR from the fantail of a DD at a target that had been tossed in the Pacific.

It's not hard for me to imagine such a weapon in the hands of a lightly trained citizen under duress hitting everything but his or her designed target.

The NFA covers more than just automatic weapons...which will become apparent to you when you read it.

Just because you might be irresponsible enough run around shooting full auto when you don't have a clue what you are doing doesn't mean that everyone shares your handicap. In fact, it's really not that difficult...my freakin 13 year old grandson manages just fine.

Finally, I wasn't aware this was a private conversation between you and M14...but if you are hot for him and want to whisper sweet nothings in his ear, I'll see what I can do about getting the mods to instruct you on how to do that privately.

 

[Dan Daly]

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

The answer is YES.......eventually.....

As the manufacturing of assault weapons (whose only "purpose" is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time) is halted, availability EVEN FOR CRIMINALS will wane......
In the 1930s, congress stopped the manufacturing of Thompson machine guns to keep such weapons from criminals (and blacks) AND the world did not come to an end.

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Not the GOfuckingP either.

It's the definition of what is common sense that is usually the subject of debate...and what portion, if any, of your human rights you have to give up in the name of someone else's definition of common sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Finally, I wasn't aware this was a private conversation between you and M14...but if you are hot for him and want to whisper sweet nothings in his ear, I'll see what I can do about getting the mods to instruct you on how to do that privately.

You'll see that WC will run away from the conversation he offered, after responding with emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
As per the norm.

 

[Dan Daly]

This question keeps popping up. It seems that these weapons are only used by criminals. Why does a law abiding citizen need a weapon best used in the hands of a well regulated militia? What is the true useful purpose of such weapons?

WHAT? You do realize that of all the nearly 12,000 murders in the US in 2014, only 242 of them were done with rifles of ANY type? This notion that they are "only used by criminals" has been so thoroughly debunked over the last couple of decades that you should be embarrassed to try to regurgitate it...it makes you look silly and ignorant of the subject we are discussing.

The "true purpose" of any firearm is to launch a projectile down range at a high rate of speed...and defending one's self is one of the "true purposes" of having a tool that will do that. Defending myself, my family and my community via means at least as good as what I allow my government to use is one of those basic human rights that I don't have to justify to you or anyone. The document outlining our current form of government attempts to guarantee that right...but does not grant it any more than it can grant my right to take a breath.

 

[LOki]

The answer is YES.......eventually.....

As the manufacturing of assault weapons (whose only "purpose" is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time) is halted, availability EVEN FOR CRIMINALS will wane......
In the 1930s, congress stopped the manufacturing of Thompson machine guns to keep such weapons from criminals (and blacks) AND the world did not come to an end.

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Not the GOfuckingP either.

It's the definition of what is common sense that is usually the subject of debate...and what portion, if any, of your human rights you have to give up in the name of someone else's definition of common sense.

I think that it is imminently agreeable that reasonable, common-sense gun laws are those that are intellectually, morally, and constitutionally valid.

 

[Dan Daly]

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Not the GOfuckingP either.

It's the definition of what is common sense that is usually the subject of debate...and what portion, if any, of your human rights you have to give up in the name of someone else's definition of common sense.

I think that it is imminently agreeable that reasonable, common-sense gun laws are those that are intellectually, morally, and constitutionally valid.

Which is why one must wonder at the intellectual capacity, morals and knowledge of the Constitution of those who, each time there is a nice tragedy to exploit, suggest the same failed remedies over and over again, trying to convince us that they will work, "this time".

 

[LOki]

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

EDIT: Oh yeah. Not the GOfuckingP either.

It's the definition of what is common sense that is usually the subject of debate...and what portion, if any, of your human rights you have to give up in the name of someone else's definition of common sense.

I think that it is imminently agreeable that reasonable, common-sense gun laws are those that are intellectually, morally, and constitutionally valid.

Which is why one must wonder at the intellectual capacity, morals and knowledge of the Constitution of those who, each time there is a nice tragedy to exploit, suggest the same failed remedies over and over again, trying to convince us that they will work, "this time".

Indeed. They don't even try.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, once again you prove your ignorance, and yours is not willful.
Straw Man is the name given to a logical fallacy.

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms, thus do you agree they are not protected by the 2nd A.?

Do try, though it is not your nature, to be honest and not hypocritical.

Read the NFA of 1934...as silly as it was, it did a fair job of setting your "reasonable" limits on what weapons law-abiding citizens can be trusted by their government to own without some kind of regulation. Granted, I don't subscribe to this notion that it is government's business...unless my actions prove I am unworthy, but I am just trying to help you not ask questions that highlight your ignorance of the subject.

As far as large magazines...if they are the standard magazines designed for that firearm, they are effectively as protected as the firearm...I think Heller agreed. That said, aftermarket magazines that differ from the OEM mags in form or function can probably be considered accessories and regulated as such.

My post was directed at M14, not reasonable gun enthusiasts. I will read the NFA of '34; my only experience with an automatic weapon was one time firing a BAR from the fantail of a DD at a target that had been tossed in the Pacific.

It's not hard for me to imagine such a weapon in the hands of a lightly trained citizen under duress hitting everything but his or her designed target.

The NFA covers more than just automatic weapons...which will become apparent to you when you read it.

Just because you might be irresponsible enough run around shooting full auto when you don't have a clue what you are doing doesn't mean that everyone shares your handicap. In fact, it's really not that difficult...my freakin 13 year old grandson manages just fine.

Finally, I wasn't aware this was a private conversation between you and M14...but if you are hot for him and want to whisper sweet nothings in his ear, I'll see what I can do about getting the mods to instruct you on how to do that privately.

Oh, and Fuck you! It seems to be a necessary condition of those who have a gun fetish to also be assholes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not?

Straw, man.

Gee, once again you prove your ignorance, and yours is not willful.
Straw Man is the name given to a logical fallacy.

Yes. That's what you posted.
No one is arguing that 'arms" includes anything other than firearms; you inclusion of SAMs and nukes into the argument is a straw man.

So, putting aside my admitted hyperbole, which type of firearm crosses the line, if in your opinion anyone does?

Any and all classes of firearms fall under the definition of 'arms" as found in Miller and Heller.

And, BTW, large magazines are not firearms

Like triggers, firing pins and barrels, they an integral part of the function of (most) firearms, and are thusly protected.
Amy limit on magazine size is arbitrary and capricious; arbitrary and capricious limits on rights inherently violate the constitution.

Now then...
Can you present a sound augment as to the necessity/constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'?
Please try not to present your usual argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Still waiting for a response.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Lots of people have brain tumors...they don't all go over the edge and start killing people. If we could determine exactly what pushed people "over the edge" to murder, we might have a chance of preventing it. Can you tell us what drives people to cross that line?

Dan,

The tumor effect depends on two factors; what part of the brain is affected and how long the effect has been active. It is estimated by the American College of Neurosurgeons that what is known about the brain is less than one percent of what could be known.

Unfortunately the only way to study the behavioral effects of brain damage is to experiment on live subjects. Much of what we do know today was determined by experiments conducted on concentration camp inmates in the early 40s by Dr. Josef Mengele and other Nazi physicians.

 

[MikeK]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not? Or, are you okay with both the former "arm" and the latter "arm" in the possession and control of the average Joe or Josephine?

While most military weapons inhabit the semantic category of "arms," not all are firearms. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were firearms, rifles and pistols. Missiles are not firearms, nor are nukes or lesser bombs.

The bottom line argument will reside in weighing the factor of intent on the part of the Framers. Would they want every citizen to possess a SAM, or a WMD? I don't think so and I strongly doubt any Supreme Court Justice would.

 

[JimH52]

Will barring the law-abiding from possessing semi-automatic rifles and 20 round magazines stop criminals from possessing them?

The answer is YES.......eventually.....

As the manufacturing of assault weapons (whose only "purpose" is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time) is halted, availability EVEN FOR CRIMINALS will wane......
In the 1930s, congress stopped the manufacturing of Thompson machine guns to keep such weapons from criminals (and blacks) AND the world did not come to an end.

The recent law suit win by two policemen who were shot by a man with a handgun that was bought through a straw purchase, is a beginning. This federal court ruling is a beginning. When the guns stores, the manufacturers, and finally the NRA begin to feel the pain in their profits, then maybe they will sit down and talk about common sense gun laws.

No one is opposed to common sense gun laws: not gun stores, not gun manufacturers, and certainly not the NRA.

And the NRA spends millions on buying the GOP so they will propose "common sense laws." Right......

Pull down your skirt - your willful ignorance is showing.

So when you got nothing, you resort to childish inserts. Typical RW Hack....

Don't argue with me. Argue with the Federal Court that made the ruling.