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

[2aguy]

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sounds like that’s what slowed him down. Many more would have died had he had 30 rd mags.

Oh, so you are just going to make this up as you go along; making a claim without any proof of such claim?

How about the truth: Magazine size is not going to stop one killer. Magazines can be switched in less than two seconds and has no impact on the amount of people killed. And my question once again: if we had a law that stopped Cruz from getting a larger magazine and he used the ones he did, would you be happy with the outcome today?

A source not authorized to speak on the record confirmed to the Herald that Cruz struggled with his gun during the onslaught, either due to the weapon jamming or because he fumbled trying to reload it.

“I believe that there will be evidence that at a key moment in this incident, three or four people — three or four people might be alive today because of something that this deranged killer did, had to do,” Rubio said at a nationally televised town hall with CNN last week.


Had Cruz used high-capacity magazines, he would not have had to reload as frequently. That’s the reason Rubio is reconsidering his position on the the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to DeFede.



Read more here: Florida school shooter’s AR-15 may have jammed, saving lives, report says

So an "anonymous" source and one politician favors your opinion? Gee.......you certainly got me convinced.

He had a lot of ammunition that wasn't fired so clearly something happened. And clearly Rubio who knows more about it than either of us thinks it saved lives that he had to reload often. If you would try to be honest you would be convinced.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

[Q

If the Democrats wanted to ban all guns they'd get voted out massively.

.

You would think the Democrats would have learned by now.

Slick Willy lost his Democrat Congress because of that stupid Assault Weapons Ban. That is the same Congressional House that filed a Bill of Impeachment against him. He even said so himself that gun control cost him his Democrat Congress and that gun control was a losing issue.

I guess his stupid wife didn't listen to him because she ran on a platform to demonize the NRA and to do "sensible" gun control and look where it got her. Everybody knows she would not have been sensible seeing that she was batshit crazy on everything else, not to mention dishonest.

The louder these idiot Moon Bats shout gun control the less likely they will be to get elected or reelected.

That is why I have a bumper sticker on my truck that says "I'm the NRA and I Vote". Just to remind these idiots while I drive the road.

They did learn...that is why they are pushing gun control extremist laws at the local and state level......and using obama appointed judges at the appellate court level to make the laws Constitutional...they know the Supreme Court lacks a 5th Pro 2nd Amendment vote and can't call up the cases because the pro 2nd Amendment justices can't trust Kennedy.....

and hilary had a plan to repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms ACt, and then to sue the gun makers out of business in the Federal courts.....

That is how they plan on gutting the 2nd Amendment....all without losing a seat in congress...

Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed.

Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[cnm]

Yes.....because they don't know what they are talking about

You should gunsplain it to them...

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....because they don't know what they are talking about

You should gunsplain it for them...

I would if I could...and if I did...you side would fail......

 

[Flash]

Funny that "only a citizen can vote" yet the conservatives are now and always have been all in for illegal criminals, even those on the no-fly list, to buy guns.
If you BUY a car you still have to have it registered AND have a license, unless you buy a car from a private citizen (like a car thief for example).
Business licenses are there to make sure you are paying your taxes (as all citizens and most illegals do) as well as complying with this countries laws. Only law breakers try to justify not following the law with taxes. Like Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree (or laws apply to you and not me).
If you earned money and did not report it you are a criminal. It's funny because many "Illegals" do report all their money and as such are less criminal than you in that sense.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself. And while you are there look up all the regulations regarding guns that were imposed by the actual writers of that amendment also known as our forefathers. Derp.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself.

Another bonehead speaks up. So, in other words, sedwin, your infarctive cranial cesspool of a mind has decided that the Framers intended that a well regulated militia with the intention of being able to stand up against a standing army in order to insure the security of a Free State be defined and controlled by the very authority it might be called upon to oppose?

ARE YOU THAT FREEKING STUPID?

So in other words, if the government wanted to assert autocratic control, all they would need to do is "regulate" the militia to having only slingshots? Get them out of the way. Take their guns. No more militia to get in their way. Maybe you ought to read THIS:

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

Actually you mom was the incredibly stupid one when she didn't have an abortion.

To be clear, that's EXACTLY what the framers said and anyone with a basic education has read all these opinions. The framers DID NOT want a standing Army, thus they created the "militia" concept which is obvious by the verbiage in the 2cd MORON. Further the wanted a WELL REGUALTED (for morons like you REGULATION MEANS LAWS -Derp), and your conservative heroes like Scalia have said so.

Can you legally own a bazooka or a fully auto gun, idiot? No, you cannot under laws proposed and passed by conservatives with the support of the NRA. There is ZERO difference for those who have read and understand the 2cd and existing law.

Go back to watching your buddies on Fox News tell you lies in order that their profits do not drop as owners of gun company stock. YOU are the idiot specifically targeted by thee propaganda campaigns because of your extremely low intelligence quotient.

Incidentally, when we fought the English we were NOT citizens but rather colonists. We did not have the rights of actual ENGLISH citizens who used their ARMY to fight us over our rights. THIS IS YOUR government not some occupying force, (or perhaps you are Russian), however I would LOVE to see you and all your friends try to shoot down an attack helicopter with your teeny, tiny, semi-auto weapons while it is sitting 5 miles away, behind a hill and spraying you with 200 .50 cal bullets a second. YOU are literally an imbecile.

Sorry Moon Bat but that silly militia bullshit was put to bed in the Heller case where the right to keep and bear arms was declared to be an individual right. Probably didn't hear that from Rachael Maddow, Democratunderground or Comedy Central, did you?

You stupid Moon Bats can claim all day long that our Founding Fathers did not intend for Americans to have the right to keep and bear arms but that dog don't hunt.

Look another idiot with an IQ lower than room temperature telling me what Heller said. IF you had read Heller the decision says we have a right to own firearms BUT the government has the right to pass gun laws. If you could read I would suggest you actually do so. Derp.

You need to actually read Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”

These stupid Moon Bats don't want to hear the facts. They just want to spout their mindless anti right to keep and bear arms garbage.

The Heller case put an end to any of the silly ass "well regulated militia" bullshit the anti gunners like to bring up as proof Americans shouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms. The dipshit don't even understand that the the term "well regulated" in colonial times referred to being well provisioned, not regulated by the filthy government.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and all arms are covered, even the modern AR-15 as you pointed out in your reference.

Every time one of these discussions come up you spend quite a bit of your time trying to educate these Moon Bats and it never takes because most of them are dumber than a door knob and can't understand anything you tell them.

You have to remember. These Moon Bats that post on here all voted for that worthless Obama and thought Crooked Hillary was going to do a Jim Dandy job as President. How can you ever reach somebody as stupid as that? They are simply too damn stupid to comprehend anything you post.

 

[Papageorgio]

The louder these idiot Moon Bats shout gun control the less likely they will be to get elected or reelected.

Yet the polls say citizens desire gun control.

http://news.gallup.com

The left’s idea of gun control seems to be banning all semi-automatics which in turn ban most hand guns.

 

[Flash]

[QU


The left’s idea of gun control seems to be banning all semi-automatics which in turn ban most hand guns.

Although they will lie and tell you so it is not about public safety. Most of the gun crimes in this country occur in the Democrat controlled big cities that have strict gun control laws. All we have to do to reduce gun violence in this country is enforce our existing laws. However that would mean that the Democrats would have to get really tough on their core constituency and they are too cowardly to do that.

The real agenda of the Left is exactly the agenda the Communist and the National Socialist and all other authoritative governments had when they disarmed the populace. It is to destroy the ability of the people to resist the government.

The Left in America looks at the right to keep and bear arms as being an impediment to making America a socialist shithole and that is why they fight against.

When 51% of the people will the use the force of government to steal from the 49% they sure sure as hell do not want the 49% armed, do they? The thieves may be shot and they don't want to take that chance, do they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The louder these idiot Moon Bats shout gun control the less likely they will be to get elected or reelected.

Yet the polls say citizens desire gun control.

http://news.gallup.com

The left’s idea of gun control seems to be banning all semi-automatics which in turn ban most hand guns.

Well, obviously, because the leaders who planted that little meme know perfectly well that most people who don't own guns don't know that, and they figure they can just slip a massive gun grab in that way.