Gun control polls

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What is an assult rifle? And who are YOU to tell me what maximum capacity my legally purchased magazines are allowed to have, when I have committed no crime and the Constitution plainly says I have the Right?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

According to the SCotUS, to be proteced by the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for service in the militia, be of common use at the time, be part of the ordinary militart equipment, and suitable for the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm.

No better example than the AR-15 I mentioned. The M16 qualifies as well.

Presented that way I have no dissagreement with the argument you make and I still can hold my original position that I don't take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms.

 

[Full-Auto]

Mind retyping that? I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you asking for court cases that back up my opinion that the courts have deemed it ok to limit us from purchasing a specific type of weapon?

No I am asking for the court opinion of other types of armaments. Scalia was just quoted.....they have not been decided.

Dont be so damn willing to give up your liberty.

Dude c'mon with the bullshit line about giving up my liberty. Get your red herring out of here man I'm not advocating to lose the liberty and right to own firearms and you know I'm not, I find you repeating this over and over insulting due to how it dishonestly portrays what I have written.


I'm still unsure of what you want me to get for you, there are tons of court cases about certain types of firearms being restricted from ownership. If you mean armaments other than firearms here http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0505/final.pdf

another example of restrictions on explosive type weapons 288 F.3d 584: Southern Blasting Services, Incorporated; Piedmont Drilling & Blasting, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Wilkes County, North Carolina, a Body Politic; Kevin D. Bounds, Wilkes County Fire Marshal, Defendants-appellees :: US Court

That is exactly what you are willing to surrender. You said it yourself with that needs spiel.

Point out how I am incorrect............

 

[M14 Shooter]

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

According to the SCotUS, to be proteced by the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for service in the militia, be of common use at the time, be part of the ordinary militart equipment, and suitable for the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm.

No better example than the AR-15 I mentioned. The M16 qualifies as well.

Presented that way I have no dissagreement with the argument you make and I still can hold my original position that I don't take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms.

You can... but restrictions on the weapons protected by the 2nd will, obviously, violate the 2nd.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No I am asking for the court opinion of other types of armaments. Scalia was just quoted.....they have not been decided.

Dont be so damn willing to give up your liberty.

Dude c'mon with the bullshit line about giving up my liberty. Get your red herring out of here man I'm not advocating to lose the liberty and right to own firearms and you know I'm not, I find you repeating this over and over insulting due to how it dishonestly portrays what I have written.


I'm still unsure of what you want me to get for you, there are tons of court cases about certain types of firearms being restricted from ownership. If you mean armaments other than firearms here http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0505/final.pdf

another example of restrictions on explosive type weapons 288 F.3d 584: Southern Blasting Services, Incorporated; Piedmont Drilling & Blasting, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Wilkes County, North Carolina, a Body Politic; Kevin D. Bounds, Wilkes County Fire Marshal, Defendants-appellees :: US Court

That is exactly what you are willing to surrender. You said it yourself with that needs spiel.

Point out how I am incorrect............

I'll point it out in my own words. After this i'm done with you if you can not be honest about my opinions the subject

I completely support the 2nd ammendment and don't think we need the ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles or assult rifles that have magazines with a larger capacity than 10 bullets.

I should be allowed to buy a semi automatic rifle/assult rifle though.

What is an assult rifle? And who are YOU to tell me what maximum capacity my legally purchased magazines are allowed to have, when I have committed no crime and the Constitution plainly says I have the Right?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

According to the SCotUS, to be proteced by the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for service in the militia, be of common use at the time, be part of the ordinary militart equipment, and suitable for the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm.

No better example than the AR-15 I mentioned. The M16 qualifies as well.

Presented that way I have no dissagreement with the argument you make and I still can hold my original position that I don't take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms.

You can... but restrictions on the weapons protected by the 2nd will, obviously, violate the 2nd.

It seems we basically agree then.

 

[Full-Auto]

Dude c'mon with the bullshit line about giving up my liberty. Get your red herring out of here man I'm not advocating to lose the liberty and right to own firearms and you know I'm not, I find you repeating this over and over insulting due to how it dishonestly portrays what I have written.


I'm still unsure of what you want me to get for you, there are tons of court cases about certain types of firearms being restricted from ownership. If you mean armaments other than firearms here http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0505/final.pdf

another example of restrictions on explosive type weapons 288 F.3d 584: Southern Blasting Services, Incorporated; Piedmont Drilling & Blasting, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Wilkes County, North Carolina, a Body Politic; Kevin D. Bounds, Wilkes County Fire Marshal, Defendants-appellees :: US Court

That is exactly what you are willing to surrender. You said it yourself with that needs spiel.

Point out how I am incorrect............

I'll point it out in my own words. After this i'm done with you if you can not be honest about my opinions the subject

What is an assult rifle? And who are YOU to tell me what maximum capacity my legally purchased magazines are allowed to have, when I have committed no crime and the Constitution plainly says I have the Right?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

and don't think we need the ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles or assult rifles that have magazines with a larger capacity than 10 bullets.

Yes we are done........

 

[M14 Shooter]

Presented that way I have no dissagreement with the argument you make and I still can hold my original position that I don't take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms.

You can... but restrictions on the weapons protected by the 2nd will, obviously, violate the 2nd.

It seems we basically agree then.

So... why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You can... but restrictions on the weapons protected by the 2nd will, obviously, violate the 2nd.

It seems we basically agree then.

So... why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

I don't feel that restricting the size of my magazine in my home state of MA nor restricting my ability to purchase fully automatic weapons has prevented me from owning and occasionally using over 2 dozen different types of firearms.

Yes I am not allowed to buy a few specific types of firearms but I still have the liberty to buy and own firearms.
.

 

[tjvh]

I completely support the 2nd ammendment and don't think we need the ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles or assult rifles that have magazines with a larger capacity than 10 bullets.

I should be allowed to buy a semi automatic rifle/assult rifle though.

What is an assult rifle? And who are YOU to tell me what maximum capacity my legally purchased magazines are allowed to have, when I have committed no crime and the Constitution plainly says I have the Right?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

So what does the second amendment say about assault rifles, and high capacity magazines? Nothing of course. The original intent of the second amendment is to maintain power in the hands of the people to prevent an out of control Government, then I'd argue the guns and magazines the Military use would be the exact same weapons our forefathers would demand the that "We the people" retain in our possession. It gives us exactly those Liberties.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It seems we basically agree then.

So... why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

I don't feel that restricting the size of my magazine in my home state of MA nor restricting my ability to purchase fully automatic weapons has prevented me from owning and occasionally using over 2 dozen different types of firearms.

Yes I am not allowed to buy a few specific types of firearms but I still have the liberty to buy and own firearms.

You agree that restrictions violate the 2nd. Why don't you take issue with them?

Your "I can still by other guns" argument is no different than saying a ban on the Lutheran chuch does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Roman Catholic.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So... why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

I don't feel that restricting the size of my magazine in my home state of MA nor restricting my ability to purchase fully automatic weapons has prevented me from owning and occasionally using over 2 dozen different types of firearms.

Yes I am not allowed to buy a few specific types of firearms but I still have the liberty to buy and own firearms.

You agree that restrictions violate the 2nd. Why don't you take issue with them?

Your "I can still by other guns" argument is no different than saying a ban on the Lutheran chuch does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Roman Catholic.

Nah that is very different, apples and oranges and 2 differnet ammendments with 2 totally different history's in the US court system.

I don't think certain specific restrictions violate the 2nd, such as restricting my ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles when I can still form an effective militia with semi automatic weapons.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What is an assult rifle? And who are YOU to tell me what maximum capacity my legally purchased magazines are allowed to have, when I have committed no crime and the Constitution plainly says I have the Right?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

So what does the second amendment say about assault rifles, and high capacity magazines? Nothing of course. The original intent of the second amendment is to maintain power in the hands of the people to prevent an out of control Government, then I'd argue the guns and magazines the Military use would be the exact same weapons our forefathers would demand the that "We the people" retain in our possession. It gives us exactly those Liberties.

Exactly it doesn't say anything condoning or preventing the ownership of assult rifles.

I'd argue that I can maintain an effective militia without those weapons.

Maybe you are right about the forefathers but they didn't make any comments about assult rifles so that would be speculation on your part and speculation on my part if I tried to guess at what the majority opion of said founders would be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't feel that restricting the size of my magazine in my home state of MA nor restricting my ability to purchase fully automatic weapons has prevented me from owning and occasionally using over 2 dozen different types of firearms.

Yes I am not allowed to buy a few specific types of firearms but I still have the liberty to buy and own firearms.

You agree that restrictions violate the 2nd. Why don't you take issue with them?

Your "I can still by other guns" argument is no different than saying a ban on the Lutheran chuch does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Roman Catholic.

Nah that is very different, apples and oranges and 2 differnet ammendments with 2 totally different history's in the US court system.

It's -exactly- the same thing - the argument states that banning the exercise of a right in manner X doesn't violate the amendment protecting that right because you can still exercise that right in manner Y.
Apples-apples.

I don't think certain specific restrictions violate the 2nd, such as restricting my ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles when I can still form an effective militia with semi automatic weapons.

That doesnt change the fact that the M16/AR-15 are possibly the very best examples of weapons protected by the 2nd, and so regardless of the fact that you might still have access to other weapons also protected by the 2nd, restricting these weapons -necessarily- violate the 2nd.

So, again: why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms that you agree are protected by the 2nd when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

 

[Full-Auto]

If you want the constitution changed you don't respect it? So all the right wingers who want to put in amendments like anti flag burning, anti abortion, balanced budget, personhood, school prayer, etc, don't respect the constitution? Hmmm, maybe you're onto something here.

What the fuck blather and deflection is this?
When have I said I want the Constitution changed you son of a bitch?

He didnt say YOU did he?





Ok Im weighing in here. ( and this isnt directed to anyone in particular )

FUCK protecting ourselves from the government. That just aint gonna happen.

If the government wants you taken out, a drone strike from a mile away will take your happy ass out.

So the argument that our guns allow us to overthow our government or keep them honest is a bullshit argument.

Second, FUCK the NRA!

Im all for the 2nd amendment, but the NRA stopped working on THAT long ago. Its simply a political lobby group owned by gun manufacturers that spreads stupid dumbass slogans so we can all post things on forums and facebook whenever theres a mass shooting.

Third, FUUUUUUCK the a gun is only a tool, like a hammer argument!!!!! As soon as someone walks into a crowded movie theatre ( or anywhere for that matter ) and kills 12 and wounds 59 others armed with hammers, then and ONLY then will that argument bear ANY merit. Until that ACTUALLY happens ( that is NOT a challenge for one of you hard of thinking dumbasses to go out and give it a try. sit the fuck down! ) I dont want to hear, see or be exposed to that lame ass 3rd grade bullshit argument ever again.

FOURTH, I am SICK of the GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE slogan. So Ive come up with a new one.

People kill people. People with guns kill LOTS of people.

Put it on a bumper sticker then stick it so far up your ass I can read it through your eyes.




LAST:

I fully support the 2nd amendment. Fully.

But Im a little sick of the bullshit that comes along with that support. When that amendment was written into the Constitution, everyone had muskets. One shot, then take a few minutes to reload and fire again. If someone got close to you, swing it like a club and hope for the best.

Now we have 90 rounds a minute assault rilfes. ITS FUCKING DIFFERENT NOW!

But hey, Im still NOT saying lets ban us some guns.

But what I would like is for those of us that actually SUPPORT 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS to wake the fuck up and realize that OUR RIGHT was just paid for with the lives of 12 innocent people. And lets not forget the 59 wounded.

Our rights are not free. Some one pays for them. And shit like this Batman Massacre in Colorado is the cost. It happens. It happens quite often in fact. And MAYBE just MAYBE, those of us that support the 2nd amendment ought to be a little more fucking respectful of that!!!

Someone else PAYS for OUR right to own guns.


People like this:

and this:

So the next time one of you fucking TOUGH GUYS starts spouting off about how awesome your gun collection is...Remember the face of the 6 year old girl who gave her life for your right to own those guns and try , just TRY, to be a little humble.

It would help if you really understood what you were talking about.

YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE HAS LED TO THIS APPEAL FOR EMOTION.

LEARN THE REAL RATES OF FIRE. Then you will have a need to hide I am sure......

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You agree that restrictions violate the 2nd. Why don't you take issue with them?

Your "I can still by other guns" argument is no different than saying a ban on the Lutheran chuch does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be a Roman Catholic.

Nah that is very different, apples and oranges and 2 differnet ammendments with 2 totally different history's in the US court system.

It's -exactly- the same thing - the argument states that banning the exercise of a right in manner X doesn't violate the amendment protecting that right because you can still exercise that right in manner Y.
Apples-apples.

I don't think certain specific restrictions violate the 2nd, such as restricting my ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles when I can still form an effective militia with semi automatic weapons.

That doesnt change the fact that the M16/AR-15 are possibly the very best examples of weapons protected by the 2nd, and so regardless of the fact that you might still have access to other weapons also protected by the 2nd, restricting these weapons -necessarily- violate the 2nd.

So, again: why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms that you agree are protected by the 2nd when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

However, I can still form an effective militia without those specific weapons so how do you reconcile that?

 

[westwall]

----Then, there's another shooting and even though we know our fixation with being able to blast the life out of little old ladies, children and babies is somehow less than healthy, we let it go because we're scared to take on the damn gun lobby.

We need our guns to protect us from the government. They need to know, we have them. There will always be victims of guns. Let it not be a defenseless society.

I'm sure your deer rifle will go a long way in stopping the big bad gov't with its M1 Abram tanks, B52 bombers, and attack drones.

The Romanian revolution was begun with single shot .22 pistols. The revolution succeeded.

 

[Full-Auto]

Nah that is very different, apples and oranges and 2 differnet ammendments with 2 totally different history's in the US court system.

It's -exactly- the same thing - the argument states that banning the exercise of a right in manner X doesn't violate the amendment protecting that right because you can still exercise that right in manner Y.
Apples-apples.

I don't think certain specific restrictions violate the 2nd, such as restricting my ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles when I can still form an effective militia with semi automatic weapons.

That doesnt change the fact that the M16/AR-15 are possibly the very best examples of weapons protected by the 2nd, and so regardless of the fact that you might still have access to other weapons also protected by the 2nd, restricting these weapons -necessarily- violate the 2nd.

So, again: why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms that you agree are protected by the 2nd when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

However, I can still form an effective militia without those specific weapons so how do you reconcile that?

IF THE CALL TO ARMS HAS NOT GONE OUT........The Militia not formed. Where does the regulation come from?

I dont mean to get on you, but this is the same thing as the conversation I had with my son regarding TSA. I complained of the treatment.

He has never known anything else and stated well if it keeps us safe.

How many liberties must we give up for the security?

 

[westwall]

An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

I am a citizen with opinions on the 2nd ammendment just like you who has the same right to interpret the 2nd ammendment and the litany of court cases surrounding it in the way that I see them.

The 2nd ammendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd ammendment does protect our liberty and right to own arms, which I personally enjoy, but it does not give us the indefinate liberty to purchase any type of armament we want.

So what does the second amendment say about assault rifles, and high capacity magazines? Nothing of course. The original intent of the second amendment is to maintain power in the hands of the people to prevent an out of control Government, then I'd argue the guns and magazines the Military use would be the exact same weapons our forefathers would demand the that "We the people" retain in our possession. It gives us exactly those Liberties.

Exactly it doesn't say anything condoning or preventing the ownership of assult rifles.

I'd argue that I can maintain an effective militia without those weapons.

Maybe you are right about the forefathers but they didn't make any comments about assult rifles so that would be speculation on your part and speculation on my part if I tried to guess at what the majority opion of said founders would be.

US V Miller 1934 does however, where the Supremes held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because "it had no forseeable military purpose". Clearly they believed that military style weapons were protected by the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[DGS49]

(a) Anyone interested in this thread should review the FOX NEWS interview with Justice Scalia of last Sunday (7/29). He has no problems with legal restraint on the types of weapons that citizens may own.

(b) IMHO, anyone who gets fired up about "assault weapons" is a little slow on the uptake. Since automatic weapons are already prohibited, "assault weapons" are nothing more than rifles that look scary. They are no more dangerous than a good deer rifle.

(c) No recent proposal regarding control of distribution of firearms would have had any effect on the events in Aurora last week. A crazy fucker with enough intelligence to be in a PhD program in neuroscience - and no history of violence - would have no trouble arming himself regardless of what the laws were. Shit, how many hundred million guns are in circulation now?

(d) the best we will ever do to control gun violence is (1) keep known felons from buying guns legally, and (2) impose more severe prison sentences on people who commit crimes with firearms. And most states are doing that already.

The occasional killing is the price we pay for wanting to live in a "free" society. Gun-crimes are not much of a problem in North Korea or Cuba.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nah that is very different, apples and oranges and 2 differnet ammendments with 2 totally different history's in the US court system.

It's -exactly- the same thing - the argument states that banning the exercise of a right in manner X doesn't violate the amendment protecting that right because you can still exercise that right in manner Y.
Apples-apples.

I don't think certain specific restrictions violate the 2nd, such as restricting my ability to buy fully automatic assult rifles when I can still form an effective militia with semi automatic weapons.

That doesnt change the fact that the M16/AR-15 are possibly the very best examples of weapons protected by the 2nd, and so regardless of the fact that you might still have access to other weapons also protected by the 2nd, restricting these weapons -necessarily- violate the 2nd.
So, again: why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms that you agree are protected by the 2nd when those restrictions violate the 2nd?

However, I can still form an effective militia without those specific weapons so how do you reconcile that?

I already have - your argument fails in every bit the same way that in banning Lutheranism doesn't violate the 1st Amendment because you can still be a Catholic.

Now, unless you -want- to argue that banning Lutheranism does not violate the 1st amendment, you'll need to withdraw your argument and come up with another explanation as to why do you not take issue with restrictions on magazine sizes or types of firearms that you agree are protected by the 2nd when those restrictions violate the 2nd.