Feinstein caught in another lie about guns.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Diane is right about guns because she once stuck her finger in a bullet hole.

Geez people.....

 

[martybegan]

Feinstein caught in another lie about guns.


she explained the difference in what she would like to do and what she has been limited in doing.

her assault weapons ban is stupid. it should be a ban on all semi and automatic firearms and firearms with detachable magazines.

.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment first. And of course, apply the same rules to police officers, as they are civilans, not soliders, just like the rest of us.

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

If you had the super-majority, why not pass the amendment then.

Oh, wait its because you DO NOT have said super majority, only polls, and polls that talk about background checks, and not banning.

So basically you want criminals better armed that citizens, both private and law enforcement?

got it.

 

[legaleagle_45]

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

To the contrary, arms already had a definition at the time the 2nd was drafted... and it certainly encompasses semi auto weapons. But if you have a super majority, as you claim then it should be no real problem. First have the 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House approve a Constitutional Amendment that defines arms in accordance with your desires. Then have 38 states ratify that amendment and you are done. Quite easy and the procedure is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Perhaps you can convince the Senate to take up your proposal right after they dispose of Feinstien's proposed Assault Weapons Ban?

 

[DiamondDave]

Her intentions are that too many Americans are getting killed by fucking guns

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI]Archie Bunker: Guns vs Pushed out of Windows - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Her intentions are that too many Americans are getting killed by fucking guns

That's just it with you loons, you actually believe your twisted ideology trumps America's Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Absolute kooks.

How does it do that?

 

[Sallow]

Diane is right about guns because she once stuck her finger in a bullet hole.

Geez people.....

Yeah..she is.

 

[Sallow]

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

To the contrary, arms already had a definition at the time the 2nd was drafted... and it certainly encompasses semi auto weapons. But if you have a super majority, as you claim then it should be no real problem. First have the 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House approve a Constitutional Amendment that defines arms in accordance with your desires. Then have 38 states ratify that amendment and you are done. Quite easy and the procedure is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Perhaps you can convince the Senate to take up your proposal right after they dispose of Feinstien's proposed Assault Weapons Ban?

They had semi-automatic weapons in 1791?

The things you learn here.

 

[DiamondDave]

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

To the contrary, arms already had a definition at the time the 2nd was drafted... and it certainly encompasses semi auto weapons. But if you have a super majority, as you claim then it should be no real problem. First have the 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House approve a Constitutional Amendment that defines arms in accordance with your desires. Then have 38 states ratify that amendment and you are done. Quite easy and the procedure is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Perhaps you can convince the Senate to take up your proposal right after they dispose of Feinstien's proposed Assault Weapons Ban?

They had semi-automatic weapons in 1791?

The things you learn here.

Multi shot weapon... 1718...

Idiot

 

[Sallow]

To the contrary, arms already had a definition at the time the 2nd was drafted... and it certainly encompasses semi auto weapons. But if you have a super majority, as you claim then it should be no real problem. First have the 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House approve a Constitutional Amendment that defines arms in accordance with your desires. Then have 38 states ratify that amendment and you are done. Quite easy and the procedure is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

Perhaps you can convince the Senate to take up your proposal right after they dispose of Feinstien's proposed Assault Weapons Ban?

They had semi-automatic weapons in 1791?

The things you learn here.

Multi shot weapon... 1718...

Idiot

So multi shot is semi automatic now.

With this "multi shot" semi auto back in 1718..you could squeeze off 150 bullets in 5 minutes, right?

That's pretty amazing.

Amazing still that the tech hasn't changed much in a couple of hundred years..

 

[DiamondDave]

They had semi-automatic weapons in 1791?

The things you learn here.

Multi shot weapon... 1718...

Idiot

So multi shot is semi automatic now.

With this "multi shot" semi auto back in 1718..you could squeeze off 150 bullets in 5 minutes, right?

That's pretty amazing.

Amazing still that the tech hasn't changed much in a couple of hundred years..

9.. unspecified time


Later in the 1700's, first cartridge gun... something like 20 shots in 10 seconds

Educate yourself.. idiot

 

[Sallow]

Multi shot weapon... 1718...

Idiot

So multi shot is semi automatic now.

With this "multi shot" semi auto back in 1718..you could squeeze off 150 bullets in 5 minutes, right?

That's pretty amazing.

Amazing still that the tech hasn't changed much in a couple of hundred years..

9.. unspecified time


Later in the 1700's, first cartridge gun... something like 20 shots in 10 seconds

Educate yourself.. idiot

Well I ain't gun expert..so I did a quick check on the wiki.

Semi-automatic firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early history (1885–1945)

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885.[1] The Model 85 was followed by the equally innovative Mannlicher Models 91, 93 and 95 semi-automatic rifles.[2] Although Mannlicher earned his reputation with his bolt action rifle designs, he also produced a few semi-automatic pistols, including the Steyr Mannlicher M1894, which employed an unusual blow-forward action and held five rounds of 6.5 mm ammunition that were fed into the M1894 by a stripper clip.

 

[DiamondDave]

So multi shot is semi automatic now.

With this "multi shot" semi auto back in 1718..you could squeeze off 150 bullets in 5 minutes, right?

That's pretty amazing.

Amazing still that the tech hasn't changed much in a couple of hundred years..

9.. unspecified time


Later in the 1700's, first cartridge gun... something like 20 shots in 10 seconds

Educate yourself.. idiot

Well I ain't gun expert..so I did a quick check on the wiki.

Semi-automatic firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early history (1885–1945)

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885.[1] The Model 85 was followed by the equally innovative Mannlicher Models 91, 93 and 95 semi-automatic rifles.[2] Although Mannlicher earned his reputation with his bolt action rifle designs, he also produced a few semi-automatic pistols, including the Steyr Mannlicher M1894, which employed an unusual blow-forward action and held five rounds of 6.5 mm ammunition that were fed into the M1894 by a stripper clip.

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high

We have posted this before... the ones crafting the new country knew of this....

Just admit you are wrong and move on

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Feinstein caught in another lie about guns.


she explained the difference in what she would like to do and what she has been limited in doing.

her assault weapons ban is stupid. it should be a ban on all semi and automatic firearms and firearms with detachable magazines.

.

You need to be honest and try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until you do MILITARY type weapons are EXACTLY what the second protects as enumerated on at least 5 occasions by the Supreme Court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Feinstein caught in another lie about guns.


she explained the difference in what she would like to do and what she has been limited in doing.

her assault weapons ban is stupid. it should be a ban on all semi and automatic firearms and firearms with detachable magazines.

.

Then repeal the 2nd amendment first. And of course, apply the same rules to police officers, as they are civilans, not soliders, just like the rest of us.

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you and has done so at least 5 times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They had semi-automatic weapons in 1791?

The things you learn here.

Multi shot weapon... 1718...

Idiot

So multi shot is semi automatic now.

With this "multi shot" semi auto back in 1718..you could squeeze off 150 bullets in 5 minutes, right?

That's pretty amazing.

Amazing still that the tech hasn't changed much in a couple of hundred years..

It does not matter what they had 200 years ago, in 1939 and again 4 more times in the recent past the Supreme Court has stated that the weapons protected by the 2nd are MILITARY type weapons in current use or of use to the military. Or are you now going to argue the Supreme Court does not make final decisions on what is and is not Constitutional when legal questions arise?

 

[BreezeWood]

Then repeal the 2nd amendment first. And of course, apply the same rules to police officers, as they are civilans, not soliders, just like the rest of us.

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you and has done so at least 5 times.

... has done so at least 5 times


only since 1938 and not without Ambiguity ... before 1938 the Courts rule was primarily for military use only - military weapons.

there would be a super majority willing to define public (A)rms by outlawing semi and automatic firearms and detachable magazines while supporting the 2nd Amendment right to bare Arms ... referred to as a sane society.

 

[Conservadude]

Dianne Feinstein caught lying about her past gun grab intentions

 

[DiamondDave]

Knew Shallow was not enough of a man to admit he was wrong

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Her intentions are that too many Americans are getting killed by fucking guns

I imagine fucking a gun is rather risky business. You'd think they'd be smart enough to unload it first.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the defining of (A)rms - especially when agreed to by a super majority which would probably be ~ 75% of Americans.

and the police would be required to maintain the same armaments as the citizenry - no exceptions.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you and has done so at least 5 times.

... has done so at least 5 times


only since 1938 and not without Ambiguity ... before 1938 the Courts rule was primarily for military use only - military weapons.

there would be a super majority willing to define public (A)rms by outlawing semi and automatic firearms and detachable magazines while supporting the 2nd Amendment right to bare Arms ... referred to as a sane society.

And yet they have so ruled. Or are you now going to claim that the precedent they have set and continue to set is somehow not what they meant? Unless you remove the second or get the court to go against its own rulings you have no leg to stand on.

Congress can not legally outlaw semi automatic weapons, the Court has been clear, military type weapons are EXACTLY what are protected by the 2nd. The only way around that is to remove the Amendment or get the court to change its mind.