Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....

[Jarlaxle]

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

You mean like the woman in South Carolina, who put five .38 Specials into a home invader? They caught the guy later, after he DROVE to a hospital! Yes, five rounds in him, and he WALKED out, DROVE himself away, and WALKED into a hospital! Someone on PCP might not notice a dozen rounds unless one hits him in the brain!

She had a 6 shot revolver. You dance with the fat lady that you brung to the dance. She did hit him 5 times which is pretty damned good and did slow him down a lot. Since her revolver only held 6, it really wouldn't have mattered if the law had read that a mag could only hold 10 or 15 or back the truck up rounds. Why bring her up in the first place? Now, if she had my favorites, she would have hit him 2 double taps for 4 rounds and he would have either gone down or left the area leaving her 2 still in the pipe. But let's face it, a 38 Special spends way too much energy on the backdrop and not enough energy on the perp. But what the 38 special revolver has going for it, it shoots each and every time you pull the trigger so it's not all bad. And it's what she had. And it was enough, obviously. But she wasn't trained and emptied her gun out just like most cops instead of double tap, assess, double tap, assess........

There was a reason the Military dumped the 38 revolver for the 45 Colt ACP and the PCP type persons they were going against in the PI is the reason. Again, this has nothing to do with capacity. It has to do with knockdown power.

Are you attempting to stumble upon a POINT, as you flop and flail?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Scalia voiced the dissenting views. What part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. That's the losing side. His dissenting views written on paper are worth as much as used toilet paper. Now, if he gets a ruling in his favor and gets that into the ruling then you would be right. Instead, he just ran off on the mouth. No legal precedence was set. To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear that and the lower courts rulings have stood. There are many reasons why the Supreme Court might refuse to hear a lower court challenge but most of the time it's that the lower court ruling should stand. IOWs, they agree with the Lower Courts ruling. You are trying to read into things that just aren't there. Here, you get your award.
View attachment 253490

View attachment 253491View attachment 253492

Moron........Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller...then after Heller, he wrote in Friedman v Highland Park that the AR-15 rifle is protected.....you don't know what you are talking about...Heller protects all bearable arms, in particular those that are in common use for lawful purposes.......as repeated in Caetano and now used in the magazine ban injunction in California...

Scalia was not in the 7th Circuit Court that ruled on Friedman V Highland Park. They did mention his dissention though. But in the end, didn't pay any mind to it. In the end, the ruling was that the term "Assault Rifle" was a bad term. It encompassed ALL semi auto rifles including even the tube fed 22 long rifles that there are more of than any other kind. The little 22 LR Semi Auto Model 60 is in more homes than any other type of rifle in existance. Since then, the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been upheld in the same courts. Stupid Oregon, last week, tried to sneak the "Assault Rifle" through and failed. Other states specifically stated "AR-15 and it's various clones" and the law sticks.

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags. The courts have ruled that 10 rounds is too little while they upheld that 15 rounds is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that the heller test is 15 rounds. Colorado had to change their law in 2013 to 15 rounds from 10 rounds long before anyone heard of the Heller Test to satisfy the court system.

Yes, Scalia did write the ruling. You have no idea how much I hate reading what he writes. He's a friggin wind bag. But a very knowledgable windbag. You keep confusing the dissenting views with Scalias views and they are completely opposite. Here is something that does apply written by Scalia and worth discussing from Hell V.

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag. And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Again, you can fight it and misquote it all you want but that's just the way it is. You want to change it then get it changed. Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals. Instead, the losing parties know that it would do them no good to try and do an appeal past the District Courts at this time.

Like Roe V Wade, the Heller Test is now established law and even your hero Kavannah won't buck it.

Seems to me that just singling out ARs and their clones is inherently illegal because it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

It is an improvement over the 1993 Assault Weapons ban that included foolish characteristics like pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.
But clearly almost any weapon can be optimized for assault purposes, and what they are then really trying to legislate against is effectiveness. And clearly any law that tries to ban any defensive weapon that is effective, is illegal.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the population is supposed to act like citizen soldiers, so then should the latest military grade weapons. So then actually full auto, like an M-4, must then be legal. You could try to somehow constrain these weapons to use only at approved ranges or something, but I see no legal basis for any weapons being arbitrarily banned.

Government has no arbitrary authority.
It only had secondary, delegated authority, only when it defensed the rights of individuals.
Clearly a general population with military grade machineguns is far better than only an elite, mercenary, military having them.
In fact, it would seem suicidal to a democratic republic to implement such gun control.

That argument ship sailed in 1939. And each and every time it's brought up in courts it gets sent down the river.

True, but that does not make it right or legal.
All it does is make you want to consider where the line in the sand should be drawn.
At some point the raising water temp will boil the frog to death.

What we really have to consider is how long do we want to keep paying $4 trillion a year in extortion to the Military Industrial Complex, that is doing things like murdering innocent Iraqis and war crimes like waterboarding?
Then there are the half million nonviolent offenders imprisoned in the illegal War on Drugs.
Etc.

Being right doesn't enter into the equation. But being legal does. And you are wrong. It's legal.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

You mean like the woman in South Carolina, who put five .38 Specials into a home invader? They caught the guy later, after he DROVE to a hospital! Yes, five rounds in him, and he WALKED out, DROVE himself away, and WALKED into a hospital! Someone on PCP might not notice a dozen rounds unless one hits him in the brain!

She had a 6 shot revolver. You dance with the fat lady that you brung to the dance. She did hit him 5 times which is pretty damned good and did slow him down a lot. Since her revolver only held 6, it really wouldn't have mattered if the law had read that a mag could only hold 10 or 15 or back the truck up rounds. Why bring her up in the first place? Now, if she had my favorites, she would have hit him 2 double taps for 4 rounds and he would have either gone down or left the area leaving her 2 still in the pipe. But let's face it, a 38 Special spends way too much energy on the backdrop and not enough energy on the perp. But what the 38 special revolver has going for it, it shoots each and every time you pull the trigger so it's not all bad. And it's what she had. And it was enough, obviously. But she wasn't trained and emptied her gun out just like most cops instead of double tap, assess, double tap, assess........

There was a reason the Military dumped the 38 revolver for the 45 Colt ACP and the PCP type persons they were going against in the PI is the reason. Again, this has nothing to do with capacity. It has to do with knockdown power.

Are you attempting to stumble upon a POINT, as you flop and flail?

I just blew the example out of the water as being not applicable to the number of legal rounds in a given mag. Careful, there are special awards out there.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I just blew the example out of the water as being not applicable to the number of legal rounds in a given mag. Careful, there are special awards out there.

No...you flailed around and screamed incoherently, then dropped trou and shit on the floor.

Did you supplier spike your drugs with idiot powder?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I just blew the example out of the water as being not applicable to the number of legal rounds in a given mag. Careful, there are special awards out there.

No...you flailed around and screamed incoherently, then dropped trou and shit on the floor.

Sorry, only one prize per fruitcake per day.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I just blew the example out of the water as being not applicable to the number of legal rounds in a given mag. Careful, there are special awards out there.

No...you flailed around and screamed incoherently, then dropped trou and shit on the floor.

Sorry, only one prize per fruitcake per day.

Son...your dignity is leaking out of your pants.

 

[Rigby5]

All this crap. Here are a couple of thoughts.

No, we are not coming for all your guns. Never going to happen. So come out from under that well defended bunker under your beds. And you others can stop with the wet dreams of joining in on the gun confiscation brigades.

As for common sense firearms regulations, get used to them. More and more states are adopting them. I won't try and justify either way on this one. It only suffices to say that the majority of the population is for common sense gun regulations. If you can't figure out what common sense gun regulations are, you are somewhat lacking in common sense.

How many laws are required before criminals start obeying them?

How many law abiding citizens died before the seat belt laws went into place? How many law abiding citizens were saved after the seat belt laws were finally universally accepted (give you a hint, it took about 10 years before they were universally accepted).

The first seat belts I wore were in a 1965 Volvo, which I bought specifically because I liked its seatbelts.
However, even though I have always worn seatbelts in every vehicle that had them, not once did they ever do me one bit of good.
Nor is there any legal basis for mandating that seat belts be worn, only that makers provide them.
Forcing owners to wear them is not a legal function of government.

Clearly the government is far in excess of what is legal for government to do, in almost every area.
Military spending is to the point of theft, the War on Drugs is totally illegal, all federal firearms laws are unconstitutional, Guantanmo is violating war crimes, WMD claims about Iraq were crimes, etc.

 

[daveman]

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

I said nothing about what was the safest action.
I merely pointed out that multiple gunshots are loud and intimidating, so a large capacity magazine has additional value other than killing lots of people.
Suppressing fire is a valid tactic.
Not necessarily recommending it, just that it does work, and requires a large capacity magazine.

it's just not practicle in a civilian situation. The more rounds that are fired the more chance an innocent will be harmed or killed.

You don't get to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

 

[daveman]

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

Lol
None Of your fucking business

What's next, Chief, you going to want free Firewater? Sorry, you have to pay for it just like everyone else.

Wow. That's really racist.

That's a joke between him and me. You keep out of it.

You eat shit. I say what I want.

 

[daveman]

All this crap. Here are a couple of thoughts.

No, we are not coming for all your guns. Never going to happen. So come out from under that well defended bunker under your beds. And you others can stop with the wet dreams of joining in on the gun confiscation brigades.

As for common sense firearms regulations, get used to them. More and more states are adopting them. I won't try and justify either way on this one. It only suffices to say that the majority of the population is for common sense gun regulations. If you can't figure out what common sense gun regulations are, you are somewhat lacking in common sense.

How many laws are required before criminals start obeying them?

How many law abiding citizens died before the seat belt laws went into place? How many law abiding citizens were saved after the seat belt laws were finally universally accepted (give you a hint, it took about 10 years before they were universally accepted).

Just say you can't answer the question.

Here's another you won't answer: How many law-abiding citizens die every year because they're not allowed to carry their weapons?

You don't actually give a shit about victims of gun crime.

 

[daveman]

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Again: You don't get to decide what anyone else needs.

 

[Rigby5]

Moron........Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller...then after Heller, he wrote in Friedman v Highland Park that the AR-15 rifle is protected.....you don't know what you are talking about...Heller protects all bearable arms, in particular those that are in common use for lawful purposes.......as repeated in Caetano and now used in the magazine ban injunction in California...

Scalia was not in the 7th Circuit Court that ruled on Friedman V Highland Park. They did mention his dissention though. But in the end, didn't pay any mind to it. In the end, the ruling was that the term "Assault Rifle" was a bad term. It encompassed ALL semi auto rifles including even the tube fed 22 long rifles that there are more of than any other kind. The little 22 LR Semi Auto Model 60 is in more homes than any other type of rifle in existance. Since then, the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been upheld in the same courts. Stupid Oregon, last week, tried to sneak the "Assault Rifle" through and failed. Other states specifically stated "AR-15 and it's various clones" and the law sticks.

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags. The courts have ruled that 10 rounds is too little while they upheld that 15 rounds is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that the heller test is 15 rounds. Colorado had to change their law in 2013 to 15 rounds from 10 rounds long before anyone heard of the Heller Test to satisfy the court system.

Yes, Scalia did write the ruling. You have no idea how much I hate reading what he writes. He's a friggin wind bag. But a very knowledgable windbag. You keep confusing the dissenting views with Scalias views and they are completely opposite. Here is something that does apply written by Scalia and worth discussing from Hell V.

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag. And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Again, you can fight it and misquote it all you want but that's just the way it is. You want to change it then get it changed. Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals. Instead, the losing parties know that it would do them no good to try and do an appeal past the District Courts at this time.

Like Roe V Wade, the Heller Test is now established law and even your hero Kavannah won't buck it.

Seems to me that just singling out ARs and their clones is inherently illegal because it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

It is an improvement over the 1993 Assault Weapons ban that included foolish characteristics like pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.
But clearly almost any weapon can be optimized for assault purposes, and what they are then really trying to legislate against is effectiveness. And clearly any law that tries to ban any defensive weapon that is effective, is illegal.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the population is supposed to act like citizen soldiers, so then should the latest military grade weapons. So then actually full auto, like an M-4, must then be legal. You could try to somehow constrain these weapons to use only at approved ranges or something, but I see no legal basis for any weapons being arbitrarily banned.

Government has no arbitrary authority.
It only had secondary, delegated authority, only when it defensed the rights of individuals.
Clearly a general population with military grade machineguns is far better than only an elite, mercenary, military having them.
In fact, it would seem suicidal to a democratic republic to implement such gun control.

That argument ship sailed in 1939. And each and every time it's brought up in courts it gets sent down the river.

True, but that does not make it right or legal.
All it does is make you want to consider where the line in the sand should be drawn.
At some point the raising water temp will boil the frog to death.

What we really have to consider is how long do we want to keep paying $4 trillion a year in extortion to the Military Industrial Complex, that is doing things like murdering innocent Iraqis and war crimes like waterboarding?
Then there are the half million nonviolent offenders imprisoned in the illegal War on Drugs.
Etc.

Being right doesn't enter into the equation. But being legal does. And you are wrong. It's legal.

The definition of legal is a process starting with inherent rights of individuals in a constitutional democratic republic. Government is not the source then of any authority at all, but merely borrows delegated authority when needed in order to defend the rights of individuals.
So then anytime the government does something that is not in defense of individual rights, it is illegal.
Does not matter what legislators or judges say.
It is nice when they say things that are right, but when they are wrong, you have to decide when it is time to get rid of them because they have become corrupt.

Legislators can never be the definition of what is legal because courts have to strike down legislation all the time.
And while judges have a better record, clearly they too can be wrong.
It is just a question of how much wrong you are willing to tolerate because an actual rebellion be awful as well.
But all individuals have the inherent right to rebel.
That is the whole point of the Dec. of Independence.

 

[daveman]

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

It's a good thing the bad guys are all gentlemen and attack only one at a time.

But it's just a Varmint Gun,right? No telling when you are going to be cornered by a whole pack of homicidal rabid gophers armed with AK-47s with Rape, Pillage and Murder on their minds. And they might have brought their flame throwers too.

Are you on drugs?

I just used an expanded example given for the AR, that's all. I mean, why not combine the need for the 30 round mag, the capability of the AR and fictitious varmints at the same time. Why not toss in a few drug dealers in the attacking force. Anyone buying this whole line of reasoning MUST be on something. Well, cupcake, you just won your first prize.
View attachment 253508

What you did was put up a pathetic and ridiculous strawman, then strutted around like you made an actual argument.

You can own whatever weapons you want. But you lack the authority to decide what others may have. So you need to stop your self-important posturing; nobody is going to say SHIT YOU RITE FAM IMMA TURN IN ALL THE GUN THINGS YOU DONT LIKE.

Nobody. You can deflate your stuffed shirt now.

 

[bripat9643]

3?

Yes 3 with at least 90rds among them just in their guns.


The suspected shooters in the San Bernardino massacre -- which left 14 dead -- had more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition with them

San Bernardino Shooters Had More Than 6,000 Rounds of Ammo, Police Say

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

I doubt you'll find retired women doing much training with guns. They are likely to miss a lot, so 30 shot magazines are exactly what they need.

 

[2aguy]

Shouldn't have to have a reason for a law abiding citizen to exercise a Constitutional right.

You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school

You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......

You are as long as the law does not spell out one specific weapon with something like "AR-15 and it's various clones". Then the AR-15 and it's various clones are single out and can be regulated seperately and even banned. This is very constitutional and has been upheld in numerous federal courts. Just because you don't like something doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

Government can't ban anything without a valid reason.
If nothing else, it deprives the maker of their means of livelihood, without compensation.
The only source of any government authority comes from the defense of the inherent rights of individuals.
Since ARs have valid defensive uses, I don't really see how they can legally be banned by any one.
If you can ban an AR, any and all weapons can be banned.
And clearly that is not legal or tolerable.
And the proof is that police and the military have them.
That shows they are necessary, so then everyone should be able to have them.
The legal basis for police and military having them is because we all can.
If we can't have them, then we would not be able to delegate and authorize police and military to have them.
Government is not a source of any authority.
If government can have these weapons, it is because we authorize them, not government.

Using Heller V and such, your argument was thrown out already. You are trying to say that the fact that the AR has Military Applications because the Government, I.E. Cops, have them means that you need them. Doesn't legally hold water anymore. The cops didn't get them because they wanted them. They just tired of getting their asses kicked because they were so outgunned by the bad guys because the bad guys had them. The Cops were no better armed than the average citizen; sidearm, shotgun, maybe a Model 700 308. The Bad guys were geared up for war. If you think an AR-15 can't go toe to toe with a M-16 or a M-4 you would be wrong. The cops just got tired of burying their own.

You keep posting things that have no basis in reality......

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And how is your 50 round magazine going to help you Rambo?

The main thing you want to do if attacked by someone who is armed, whether knife of gun, is to supress their aggression.
You want them to flinch and take cover.
You do that by firing lots of shots.
If you are too humanitarian, you can fire into the ground if you want.
But your life could easily depend up being able to fire enough shots in order to intimidate them.
The goal is not to conserve your shots so that they get close enough for you to be able to kill them.
You would rather they stay so far away that you do not have to kill them.
Firepower is the only way to do that.

If one shot does not stop the aggressor from aggressing 30 misses won't either and you are now in a knife fight with an empty gun used as a club. If he is aggressing towards me with that same knife, he sees me taking the weapon out. He gets one verbal warning if I have time. If he doesn't stop, he gets a double tap in the chest. I am 100% sure he's stopped at that point. If I don't have time for the verbal warning, he still gets the double tap in the chest. If he's wearing body armor, he gets the old triple tap. And he will either get double tapped or tripple tapped until he is down on the ground. But I won't keep shooting until the gun is empty by continuous fire. Depending on the situation, I doubt I will need more than 4 or 6 rounds. It's called training. Something that those that want 30 rounds really don't have. If I need 30 rounds, I had damned well be wearing a Pickle Suit, be on a mission and be in the Military.

I said nothing about what was the safest action.
I merely pointed out that multiple gunshots are loud and intimidating, so a large capacity magazine has additional value other than killing lots of people.
Suppressing fire is a valid tactic.
Not necessarily recommending it, just that it does work, and requires a large capacity magazine.

it's just not practicle in a civilian situation. The more rounds that are fired the more chance an innocent will be harmed or killed.

You don't get to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

Do you mean that you get to make the decision to have your misses possibly hit and kill innocents? They don't get a say in it? Actually, they do. That's why the majority have spoken about limiting bullets in mags. And neither of us get a say in that. The People have spoken.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All this crap. Here are a couple of thoughts.

No, we are not coming for all your guns. Never going to happen. So come out from under that well defended bunker under your beds. And you others can stop with the wet dreams of joining in on the gun confiscation brigades.

As for common sense firearms regulations, get used to them. More and more states are adopting them. I won't try and justify either way on this one. It only suffices to say that the majority of the population is for common sense gun regulations. If you can't figure out what common sense gun regulations are, you are somewhat lacking in common sense.

How many laws are required before criminals start obeying them?

How many law abiding citizens died before the seat belt laws went into place? How many law abiding citizens were saved after the seat belt laws were finally universally accepted (give you a hint, it took about 10 years before they were universally accepted).

Just say you can't answer the question.

Here's another you won't answer: How many law-abiding citizens die every year because they're not allowed to carry their weapons?

You don't actually give a shit about victims of gun crime.

You can't answer that anymore than I can. You asked a question that can't be answered. Nice goalpost shift, fruitcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Scalia was not in the 7th Circuit Court that ruled on Friedman V Highland Park. They did mention his dissention though. But in the end, didn't pay any mind to it. In the end, the ruling was that the term "Assault Rifle" was a bad term. It encompassed ALL semi auto rifles including even the tube fed 22 long rifles that there are more of than any other kind. The little 22 LR Semi Auto Model 60 is in more homes than any other type of rifle in existance. Since then, the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been upheld in the same courts. Stupid Oregon, last week, tried to sneak the "Assault Rifle" through and failed. Other states specifically stated "AR-15 and it's various clones" and the law sticks.

We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags. The courts have ruled that 10 rounds is too little while they upheld that 15 rounds is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that the heller test is 15 rounds. Colorado had to change their law in 2013 to 15 rounds from 10 rounds long before anyone heard of the Heller Test to satisfy the court system.

Yes, Scalia did write the ruling. You have no idea how much I hate reading what he writes. He's a friggin wind bag. But a very knowledgable windbag. You keep confusing the dissenting views with Scalias views and they are completely opposite. Here is something that does apply written by Scalia and worth discussing from Hell V.

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag. And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.

Again, you can fight it and misquote it all you want but that's just the way it is. You want to change it then get it changed. Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals. Instead, the losing parties know that it would do them no good to try and do an appeal past the District Courts at this time.

Like Roe V Wade, the Heller Test is now established law and even your hero Kavannah won't buck it.

Seems to me that just singling out ARs and their clones is inherently illegal because it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

It is an improvement over the 1993 Assault Weapons ban that included foolish characteristics like pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.
But clearly almost any weapon can be optimized for assault purposes, and what they are then really trying to legislate against is effectiveness. And clearly any law that tries to ban any defensive weapon that is effective, is illegal.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the population is supposed to act like citizen soldiers, so then should the latest military grade weapons. So then actually full auto, like an M-4, must then be legal. You could try to somehow constrain these weapons to use only at approved ranges or something, but I see no legal basis for any weapons being arbitrarily banned.

Government has no arbitrary authority.
It only had secondary, delegated authority, only when it defensed the rights of individuals.
Clearly a general population with military grade machineguns is far better than only an elite, mercenary, military having them.
In fact, it would seem suicidal to a democratic republic to implement such gun control.

That argument ship sailed in 1939. And each and every time it's brought up in courts it gets sent down the river.

True, but that does not make it right or legal.
All it does is make you want to consider where the line in the sand should be drawn.
At some point the raising water temp will boil the frog to death.

What we really have to consider is how long do we want to keep paying $4 trillion a year in extortion to the Military Industrial Complex, that is doing things like murdering innocent Iraqis and war crimes like waterboarding?
Then there are the half million nonviolent offenders imprisoned in the illegal War on Drugs.
Etc.

Being right doesn't enter into the equation. But being legal does. And you are wrong. It's legal.

The definition of legal is a process starting with inherent rights of individuals in a constitutional democratic republic. Government is not the source then of any authority at all, but merely borrows delegated authority when needed in order to defend the rights of individuals.
So then anytime the government does something that is not in defense of individual rights, it is illegal.
Does not matter what legislators or judges say.
It is nice when they say things that are right, but when they are wrong, you have to decide when it is time to get rid of them because they have become corrupt.

Legislators can never be the definition of what is legal because courts have to strike down legislation all the time.
And while judges have a better record, clearly they too can be wrong.
It is just a question of how much wrong you are willing to tolerate because an actual rebellion be awful as well.
But all individuals have the inherent right to rebel.
That is the whole point of the Dec. of Independence.

Then we have to ask the question, are you willing to NOT follow the law? And are you ready to get your rebellion started already?