Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So any rich person with enough money can have a nuke in the US, say, next door to you?

Which guy? Who? Name some names.

 

[Taz]

So any rich person with enough money can have a nuke in the US, say, next door to you?

Which guy? Who? Name some names.

Let’s say a rich Arab-American. It’s ok with you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let’s say a rich Arab-American. It’s ok with you?

What's his name?

Is this a real person, or are you just giving me a hypothetical?

Do you even comprehend the amount of work required to create a nuke? Iran has been working on it for how many decades now?

 

[Taz]

Let’s say a rich Arab-American. It’s ok with you?

What's his name?

Me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When all you guns freaks WASH THE BLOOD OFF YOUR HANDS FROM ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN!!!

Probably about one-one hundredth of the blood that flows out of abortion clinics.

So you agree with me. Good for you.

Well I heard a stat on the radio today: Every day 11 teens get killed by texting and driving. When are you going to go after cell phones?

Not what we’re talking about. Go start a thread if you want.

It's exactly what you're talking about. You are saying you want a disarmed country because you care so much about the kids.......well? If you care so much about them, maybe you should lead the charge into making a law that only people 21 and older have cell phones.

In another tread the leftists were saying how we should restrict guns to people 21 years and older because they care about the kids so much. I say Trump should make a trade with the Democrats: We'll raise the age to buy a gun if Democrats agree to raise the age to vote. Do you know what Dem politicians would say about the kids then??? They'd say F those kids.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Me.

So, where are you getting your nuke? Who is your supplier?

Or, are you making it, like Iran has been trying to do for decades now? If so, are you using yellow cake, U-235, or Plutonium 239. Who is your supplier of THAT shit?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Where are you getting your equipment to enrich your product? Who are the physicists are you paying to do this work for you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, I forgot about the triggering device. Who is going to supply that? It could be open and free in America, but the market for that device is military to military.

 

[Taz]

Me.

So, where are you getting your nuke? Who is your supplier?

Or, are you making it, like Iran has been trying to do for decades now? If so, are you using yellow cake, U-235, or Plutonium 239. Who is your supplier of THAT shit?

Do you support my 2nd Amendment right to own one?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who were you planning on nuking, should that need arise? Surely, you are not just going use it for target practice, like we use guns. You better be 20-50 miles away when it blows.

I guess this is a good time to discuss delivery systems. Do you have a supplier or are you planning on doing rocket science, like North Korea has been doing for 40 years?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you support my 2nd Amendment right to own one?

By all means (and I do mean fucking ALL of your means) go for it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Stevens pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 landmark case that protected an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected to a militia, as a turning point. The ruling — of which Stevens was a dissenter — overturned "long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment's limited reach," he said, and gave the National Rifle Association "a propaganda weapon of immense power."

"Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA's ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option," he wrote.’

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment would do little to change the landscape of firearm regulation.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that restrictions on firearms designated as assault weapons are Constitutional – indeed, advocates of such restrictions would be well-advised to leave well-enough alone.

 

[Papageorgio]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

If you need permission from government to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. Is that too damn difficult to understand? A license is permission from government to exercise a constitutional right.

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

I don’t mind registering a fire arm but other than voting none of those examples are rights.

 

[Papageorgio]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

I didn't say all firearms, I said a ban on semi-automatic handguns which if I am not mistaken are the vast majority of all handguns. I don't know or care about the NRA, I am referring to this article and this former Supreme Court Justice wanting to ban all semi-automatics and repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I don't own a gun however when a person says the word "ban" then I take that as not being able to own a semi-automatic, if they wanted to strengthen gun control then they need to word it so.

I'm not sure anyone could say, "semi-autos are the vast majority of all handguns." That's a guess, at best. Many States do not track firearm ownership at all. Many people own single-action revolvers and many more own bolt action rifles, shotguns and lever-action rifles. NONE of these are "semi-auto," and as far as I know even the government couldn't say how many single action revolvers versus semi-auto's are in circulation. Once again, fully automatic guns are "banned" and assault rifles were "banned" at one time but if you are a law abiding citizen who qualifies you can still buy and own these "banned" arms. You just cannot buy them without applying and registering with the ATF.

I promise you most handguns/pistols are semi auto.
No one buys a wheel gun that isnt double action anymore.

That is what reasearch has showed me.

 

[Papageorgio]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

I didn't say all firearms, I said a ban on semi-automatic handguns which if I am not mistaken are the vast majority of all handguns. I don't know or care about the NRA, I am referring to this article and this former Supreme Court Justice wanting to ban all semi-automatics and repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I don't own a gun however when a person says the word "ban" then I take that as not being able to own a semi-automatic, if they wanted to strengthen gun control then they need to word it so.

I'm not sure anyone could say, "semi-autos are the vast majority of all handguns." That's a guess, at best. Many States do not track firearm ownership at all. Many people own single-action revolvers and many more own bolt action rifles, shotguns and lever-action rifles. NONE of these are "semi-auto," and as far as I know even the government couldn't say how many single action revolvers versus semi-auto's are in circulation. Once again, fully automatic guns are "banned" and assault rifles were "banned" at one time but if you are a law abiding citizen who qualifies you can still buy and own these "banned" arms. You just cannot buy them without applying and registering with the ATF.

I did some research for my claim of most handguns are semis, so I’ll take the word of others over yours. The rest of your post has nothing to do with my pervious posts and is a repeat of your last one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, I forgot about the triggering device. Who is going to supply that? It could be open and free in America, but the market for that device is military to military.

Don't forget the insanely complicated containment system to store the radioactive materials safely.

 

[2aguy]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

All hand guns except for old western style, single action guns are semi auto guns, even most revolvers......all semi auto means is one pull of the trigger, one bullet is fired, it loads on it's own, you don't have to use a lever, a pump or a bolt to load the next round.

That is why they are focusing on the AR-15 civilian rifle. They think they can get it banned...if they can get it banned, they have set the precedent that a weapon that fires like the AR-15 civilian rifle is too dangerous for civilians......and then they will come back later and say...see...all those other rifles fire the same way as the AR-15, and since you allowed us to ban the AR-15 civilian rifle, you have no argument against us banning all the rest too...

That is what they are trying to do....that is why we can't let them do it.

 

[2aguy]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

If you need permission from government to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. Is that too damn difficult to understand? A license is permission from government to exercise a constitutional right.

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

I don’t mind registering a fire arm but other than voting none of those examples are rights.

You should be against that too......the reason they want you to register the gun you have is so that when they get the political power, they know where it is when they tell you to get rid of it or turn it in.....it happened this way in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, Chicago.......

There is no need to register guns...they do not use registration to solve crimes or to stop crimes, as police will tell you...the only reason, is to know who has them for confiscation....

 

[2aguy]

‘Stevens pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 landmark case that protected an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected to a militia, as a turning point. The ruling — of which Stevens was a dissenter — overturned "long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment's limited reach," he said, and gave the National Rifle Association "a propaganda weapon of immense power."

"Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA's ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option," he wrote.’

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment would do little to change the landscape of firearm regulation.

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that restrictions on firearms designated as assault weapons are Constitutional – indeed, advocates of such restrictions would be well-advised to leave well-enough alone.

Then the AR-15 is protected, since the Supreme Court defined it as a semi auto rifle.......making it definitely not an "Assault Rifle." Right?

Staples v. United States.......legal Precedent from the Supreme Court which identifies, specifically, the AR-15 rifle as semi auto rifle,......

And also....since Heller specifically protects any bearable weapon....that is in common use for self defense and other legal purposes...that would mean that according to you, the AR-15 civilian rifle as the most common and popular rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire.

 

[xyz]

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Nonsense.

Neither rights nor freedoms can be ‘taken away.’

Rights are subject to limitations and restrictions consistent with Constitutional case law, where such limits and restrictions do not ‘take away’ rights and freedoms.

And the same is true with regard to the Second Amendment; if a given class of firearms is banned consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, no freedoms have been ‘taken away,’ no rights ‘violated.’

You are really confused about this, aren't you?

What "jurisprudence" leeway do you have with the wording "shall not be infringed"? Not much, is it? Certainly not banning of arms.

We have natural rights. The BOR restricts what the government can do to or not do to restrict those rights. Pretty straightforward with "shall not be infringed", isn't it?

If the government can take firearms aways and if you have to get permission from the filthy government to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

Frankly, as I see it, all gun restrictions are constitutionally illegal, and we have only been looking the other way for years telling ourselves it was for the public good. The intention of the Framers was that we had a militia of the people equal to anything the standing army had. Tit for tat. Our first president George Washington said it himself. Flintlocks and muskets are no longer the order of the day. If you have the money to afford it and are not a felon or criminal background, you should be free to own any firearm on the face of the Earth, full automatic, .50 caliber, Minigun, full assault, belt fed, grenade launcher, incendiary---- TANK if you want one! To those who say I don't need one, screw off------ all I can say is that if the shit ever hits the frying pan, I won't be at YOUR door wasting my ammo to save your worthless ass.

So you should be equal with government firepower? Then you need to buy some nukes, the big ones. Do you defend an Arab-American’s right to own a nuke?

Yeah, you need nukes. That way when the government goes tyrannical, you can nuke the very own country you live in.

And probably yourself, unless you own a rocket or airplane.