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

[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?

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 commons citizens today should be able to own them as well.

Have a good time working around that.

he won't......he will probably make a comment about your genitals, giggle like a child and throw his poop......

 

[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.

he won't......he will probably make a comment about your genitals, giggle like a child and throw his poop......

Yeah, well. He can throw anything he wants. Doesn't make what he said true.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

And expect that ruling to be overturned on appeal. Which circuit court made that ruling? The 2nd?

Well now. Two cheers for the judicial process. That's not the end of it.

 

[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".

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....

You're mentally retarded. When you dress in a dress do you go by the nom de plume Stephanie?
Take all of your guns, and describe how you might defend yourself against the US Military.

 

[MikeK]

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?

I have no doubt they would. Why wouldn't they? If such advanced firearms exist it logically follows they would not want the citizens disadvantaged by keeping and bearing inferior ones.

 

[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?

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.

LOL, your spin won't turn. Your point is dull. Your opinion is ridiculous.

Since an anti tank gun is technically a gun ... yada , yada, yada.

 

[MikeK]

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

The most advanced type of firearm available to them.

 

[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.

LOL, your spin won't turn. Your point is dullk. Your opinion is ridiculous.

And your argument has been destroyed.

 

[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....

You're mentally retarded. When you dress in a dress do you go by the nom de plume Stephanie?
Take all of your guns, and describe how you might defend yourself against the US Military.

If we have 90 million homes with guns in them, and at least 1 million with Ar-15s plus another million pf other semi auto rifles....you start a resistance movement....

you know...loke the backwards ass barbarians who are now back in Charge of Iraq and Afghanistan after fighting of the most powerful amd best equiped military in the world...using rifles and improvised bombs....

sort of like that...but we would have better armed, trained and educated fighters...with more to lose and a reason to resist....

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

I have no doubt they would. Why wouldn't they? If such advanced firearms exist it logically follows they would not want the citizens disadvantaged by keeping and bearing inferior ones.

I suppose we'll need to wait and see how Scalia and his brethren decide on the ability of every citizen, or any citizen, to own such a weapon for personal security.

 

[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.

LOL, your spin won't turn. Your point is dull. Your opinion is ridiculous.

Since an anti tank gun is technically a gun ... yada , yada, yada.

Well, I guess slingshots could be considered guns, too, right? You seem to think that we want the right to be able to own any weapon of any kind. No, just pistols, knives and rifles. Not nukes, tanks, RPG's, or artillery pieces.

Where would I put an artillery piece anyhow? I mean, it would make for a good Halloween decoration or something. I could shoot candy at the trick or treaters...

 

[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?

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.

LOL, your spin won't turn. Your point is dull. Your opinion is ridiculous.

Since an anti tank gun is technically a gun ... yada , yada, yada.

Well, I guess slingshots could be considered guns, too, right? You seem to think that we want the right to be able to own any weapon of any kind. No, just pistols, knives and rifles. Not nukes, tanks, RPG's, or artillery pieces.

Where would I put an artillery piece anyhow? I mean, it would make for a good Halloween decoration or something. I could shoot candy at the trick or treaters...

A slingshot is a deadly weapon, it is not a firearm, nor can it launch a projectile as often or with the speed or accuracy of a semi-automatic firearm.

I support a sober, sane and law abiding citizen to own a firearm to protect their home or business. The best method to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them in their possession is to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm, and to register all firearms.

I've posted such a plan a number of times and the only rebuttal - so to speak - are ad hominems and the usual fallback that the Second Amendment forbids both. A statement which is untrue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A slingshot is a deadly weapon, it is not a firearm, nor can it launch a projectile as often or with the speed or accuracy of a semi-automatic firearm.

So? They have been used in warfare. Just like rifles are. Why aren't you concerned about that?

I support a sober, sane and law abiding citizen to own a firearm to protect their home or business. The best method to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them in their possession is to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm, and to register all firearms.

For the first part, don't we already do that? Do you see how miserably that process fails? Dylann Roof, the Oregon Shooter, Seung-Hui Cho... all passed background checks. Yet they went on to kill a bunch of people.

That last bit is impossible. What about the firearms bought on the black market? Seems cliche, but it's a valid concern.

I've posted such a plan a number of times and the only rebuttal - so to speak - are ad hominems and the usual fallback that the Second Amendment forbids both. A statement which is untrue.

First, you can't whine about ad hominem, since you've launched your fair share about the mental states of your opponents, second, the Second Amendment states clearly that no law shall infringe on the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Now all ya have to do is go out and collect em from all the good libs who didnt turn them in.

 

[2aguy]

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?

I have no doubt they would. Why wouldn't they? If such advanced firearms exist it logically follows they would not want the citizens disadvantaged by keeping and bearing inferior ones.

I suppose we'll need to wait and see how Scalia and his brethren decide on the ability of every citizen, or any citizen, to own such a weapon for personal security.

do you anti gun extremists care that Americans own over 1 million AR-15s. And each year only a few are used in any crime at all........that is a 1 with 6 zeroes vs. 2-3


We do not have an assault weapon problem.

 

[2aguy]

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

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

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.

LOL, your spin won't turn. Your point is dull. Your opinion is ridiculous.

Since an anti tank gun is technically a gun ... yada , yada, yada.

Well, I guess slingshots could be considered guns, too, right? You seem to think that we want the right to be able to own any weapon of any kind. No, just pistols, knives and rifles. Not nukes, tanks, RPG's, or artillery pieces.

Where would I put an artillery piece anyhow? I mean, it would make for a good Halloween decoration or something. I could shoot candy at the trick or treaters...

A slingshot is a deadly weapon, it is not a firearm, nor can it launch a projectile as often or with the speed or accuracy of a semi-automatic firearm.

I support a sober, sane and law abiding citizen to own a firearm to protect their home or business. The best method to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them in their possession is to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm, and to register all firearms.

I've posted such a plan a number of times and the only rebuttal - so to speak - are ad hominems and the usual fallback that the Second Amendment forbids both. A statement which is untrue.

How does licensing stop mass shooters? How does locensing stop criminals from getting guns?

you have never explained how that works........

since criminals don't get licenses....why are they sp important in stopping crimnals?

since mass shooters either passed background checks...meaning they would also get a gun license.....or got their guns illegally, thereby avoiding licensing.....how,does licensing normal gun owners stop gun crime or mass shooters?

there is no need to license gun owners.....criminals can already be arrested for criminal use of guns amd felins can already be arrested for just having a gun....since they can't get a gun license anyway....

do you ever think about what we have posted?

You keep posting that we need to license gun owners...but why?

 

[JimH52]

Oh, I think the lawsuits are gonna pile up on manufacturers and gun shops, until they will be very careful who they sell a gun to. The premiums on their liability insurance will eat them alive....

 

[MikeK]

We do not have an assault weapon problem.

True.

The problem is the effect the word "assault" has on the pre-conscious perceptions of the typical anti-gun proponent, the vast majority of whom know nothing about guns, harbor an unreasonable fear of guns, and are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances.

The word "assault" properly refers to unmitigated criminal action. Thus, in the mind of the average anti-gun proponent, its proper use in reference to a specific type of military firearm imparts a sinister semantic connotation to any rifle which bears the slightest resemblance to those which are authentic military assault weapons, such as the Kalashnikov AK-47 and the Stoner M-16, both of which are capable of full-automatic operation.

The typical anti-gun proponent regards the AR-15 and the semi-automatic version of the AK-47 as "assault weapons" in spite of the fact that neither are capable of fully automatic operation which is the primary characteristic of an "assault weapon." Because the AR-15 looks like the M-16, in the mind of the anti-gun proponent it is an "assault" weapon. Because the M-16 and the AK-47 have pistol grips, any rifle with a pistol grip is an "assault weapon" to them.

Unfortunately, these are the people who influence the endless progression of restrictive, repressive gun laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As expected the thread has deteriorated into the usual idiocy from the right – extremist, absolutist nonsense having nothing to do with the Second Amendment or its case law, serving only to reinforce the perception that many gun owners are reckless, irresponsible nitwits.

That one doesn't like or agree with current Second Amendment jurisprudence is irrelevant; rather than whining about how the courts are 'wrong' or their decisions 'stupid,' find instead in Heller the Court's intent with regard to the appropriate regulation of firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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....

And here is an example of the usual idiocy from the right.