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

[M14 Shooter]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

 

[JimH52]

Stick to the topic. The Court upheld a law restricting "assault" weapons and large-capacity magazines. Another small step to common sense gun laws.

 

[JimH52]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

I am conceding nothing. Just stating what the Federal Court ruled. Write a letter if you have a problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stick to the topic. The Court upheld a law restricting "assault" weapons and large-capacity magazines. Another small step to common sense gun laws.

There is no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons' - as proven by the absence of same in this decision.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

I am conceding nothing.

Your repeated refusal to even try to present such an argument is your concession.

 

[JimH52]

Stick to the topic. The Court upheld a law restricting "assault" weapons and large-capacity magazines. Another small step to common sense gun laws.

There is no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons' - as proven by the absence of same in this decision.

Obviously a Federal Court disagrees with you. Deal with it.....

 

[JimH52]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

I am conceding nothing.

Your repeated refusal to even try to present such an argument is your concession.

I am not arguing anything/ The argument you have is with the court. WRITE A LETTER!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Stick to the topic. The Court upheld a law restricting "assault" weapons and large-capacity magazines. Another small step to common sense gun laws.

There is no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons' - as proven by the absence of same in this decision.

Obviously a Federal Court disagrees with you. Deal with it.....

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

I am conceding nothing.

Your repeated refusal to even try to present such an argument is your concession.

I am not arguing anything/ The argument you have is with the court. WRITE A LETTER!

I accept your concession, that there is no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

 

[JimH52]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

I am conceding nothing.

Your repeated refusal to even try to present such an argument is your concession.

I am not arguing anything/ The argument you have is with the court. WRITE A LETTER!

I accept your concession, that there is no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

So now you are stuttering? Sad....Please go stroke you rifle barrel. It will sooth you.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

I accept your concession, that there s no sound argument for the necessity and/or the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

There is, for those of us who have the basic character trait of empathy and care and concern for the many. You are what was once diagnosed a Sociopath, and which I define as an asshole. Neither give a care for anyone but themselves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Idiot-Gram . A musket, let's see, how many people could have escaped, and now many others could and would have kicked the shit out of James Holmes before he could reload a musket?

 

[2aguy]

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.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

yes they would have the whole point was to make sure the people could defend themselves from the Government...so if the founders knew the modern military had fully automatic weapons they would have insisted that the people have them as well..especially since they did not trust standing armies and did their best to prevent us from having one......read some history....

 

[2aguy]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Idiot-Gram . A musket, let's see, how many people could have escaped, and now many others could and would have kicked the shit out of James Holmes before he could reload a musket?

And if it wasn't a gun free zone someone could have shot him and saved lives....

 

[2aguy]

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.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

They carried the standard rifle of the first class military power of the world.......

 

[2aguy]

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.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

We know from their writings that they wouldn't expect people to be disarmed in the face of someone trying to murder children...that would have been an absurd notion to those men....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A musket, which could be classified today as a RIFLE.

What a doofus you are. Clearly you don't pay attention to history.

Idiot-Gram . A musket, let's see, how many people could have escaped, and now many others could and would have kicked the shit out of James Holmes before he could reload a musket?

Lol Wry. You were just caught lying. Since a musket is technically a rifle, and common citizens owned them back then, it is easy to assume that "arms" include but are not limited to assault rifles. Meaning that common citizens today should be able to own them as well.

Have a good time working around that.