Predict how long before????

[JakeStarkey]

The leges and the courts decide what is legal, not the individual citizen.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If some of your guns are ruled illegal and upheld by the courts, Constitutionally, you have no right to that particular weapon

Everything the citizen lawfully posesses falls into common usage provisions of Heller Vs DC therefore is Constitutionally protected.

 

[rightwinger]

If some of your guns are ruled illegal and upheld by the courts, Constitutionally, you have no right to that particular weapon

Everything the citizen lawfully posesses falls into common usage provisions of Heller Vs DC therefore is Constitutionally protected.

No it doesn't

Our legislators can still determine which weapons, ammunition and clips are lawful to maintain.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Our legislators can still determine which weapons, ammunition and clips are lawful to maintain.

Not if those weapons are presently in common usage.

You should read Heller Vs DC

 

[GuyPinestra]

Our legislators can still determine which weapons, ammunition and clips are lawful to maintain.

Not if those weapons are presently in common usage.

You should read Heller Vs DC

I just did and you are correct.

Now what happens if they ratify the UN treaty?

They're already saying that it will trump the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Our legislators can still determine which weapons, ammunition and clips are lawful to maintain.

Not if those weapons are presently in common usage.

You should read Heller Vs DC

Sorry, but Heller does not have that scope

 

[GuyPinestra]

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Heller reaffirms Miller...

 

[Katzndogz]

If the military protects the Constitution we have a free people. If the military protects the president, we have tyranny.

That's why the military is not supposed to protect the president. It's the secret service.

 

[J.E.D]

How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.

It's not about banning guns. It never was. It's about sensible gun control laws. This man should never have been in possession of an assault rifle. Maybe that would have made a difference, maybe not; but there is no reasonable scenario where an average American citizen needs an assault rifle.

It IS about banning guns, once you ban an AR-15 gun control buts have every right to go after a semi automatic Trap, and Skeet shotgun for the exact same mechanical reasons. Their are plenty of gun Laws on the books already, and gun control only controls Law abiding citizens anyway. As for your last sentence... What gives you the Right to define what a reasonable scenario is? You are intellectually superior than gun owners, and far more capable to decide what is best for them? Really. And as for "assault rifle", I've made the distinction between fully automatic and semi automatic, and the Law has already done that as well.

What gives me the right? Because YOU are so fucking paranoid about fictional gun-banning laws, it doesn't mean that every person should have the right to bear whatever damn gun they want. There is no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of a damn assault rifle. Period. If you can't protect yourself with a semi pistol or a rifle or shotgun, then you're getting yourself into situations that you shouldn't be getting into.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, you are mistaken, but you can give us the official brief for it.

If some of your guns are ruled illegal and upheld by the courts, Constitutionally, you have no right to that particular weapon

Everything the citizen lawfully posesses falls into common usage provisions of Heller Vs DC therefore is Constitutionally protected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are mistaken now as you were above. Produce the proof.

Our legislators can still determine which weapons, ammunition and clips are lawful to maintain.

Not if those weapons are presently in common usage.

You should read Heller Vs DC

 

[JakeStarkey]

Miller and Heller, guys, do not protect what are you discussing.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Heller reaffirms Miller...

 

[GuyPinestra]

What gives me the right? Because YOU are so fucking paranoid about fictional gun-banning laws, it doesn't mean that every person should have the right to bear whatever damn gun they want. There is no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of a damn assault rifle. Period. If you can't protect yourself with a semi pistol or a rifle or shotgun, then you're getting yourself into situations that you shouldn't be getting into.

That's really funny, you going off about 'fictional gun-banning laws', and then with nothing more than a comma, proceed to advocate gun banning.

And you might want to define 'assault rifle', too...

 

[J.E.D]

What gives me the right? Because YOU are so fucking paranoid about fictional gun-banning laws, it doesn't mean that every person should have the right to bear whatever damn gun they want. There is no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of a damn assault rifle. Period. If you can't protect yourself with a semi pistol or a rifle or shotgun, then you're getting yourself into situations that you shouldn't be getting into.

That's really funny, you going off about 'fictional gun-banning laws', and then with nothing more than a comma, proceed to advocate gun banning.

And you might want to define 'assault rifle', too...

Yes, that's right. I did propose banning assault rifles. There is absolutely no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of an assault rifle. Call me a fascist or whatever nonsense you can come up with. You don't need an assault rifle. Period.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What gives me the right? Because YOU are so fucking paranoid about fictional gun-banning laws, it doesn't mean that every person should have the right to bear whatever damn gun they want. There is no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of a damn assault rifle. Period. If you can't protect yourself with a semi pistol or a rifle or shotgun, then you're getting yourself into situations that you shouldn't be getting into.

That's really funny, you going off about 'fictional gun-banning laws', and then with nothing more than a comma, proceed to advocate gun banning.

And you might want to define 'assault rifle', too...

Yes, that's right. I did propose banning assault rifles. There is absolutely no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of an assault rifle. Call me a fascist or whatever nonsense you can come up with. You don't need an assault rifle. Period.

So those fictional gun banning laws aren't so fictional after all, are they?

Now that your first point is totally debunked, would you care to define 'assault rifle'?

 

[J.E.D]

That's really funny, you going off about 'fictional gun-banning laws', and then with nothing more than a comma, proceed to advocate gun banning.

And you might want to define 'assault rifle', too...

Yes, that's right. I did propose banning assault rifles. There is absolutely no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of an assault rifle. Call me a fascist or whatever nonsense you can come up with. You don't need an assault rifle. Period.

So those fictional gun banning laws aren't so fictional after all, are they?

Now that your first point is totally debunked, would you care to define 'assault rifle'?

There is no gun-banning law; so, yes, they are fictional. And you know exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody - including myself - is proposing a law that would take away your right to bear arms.

And no, I'm not playing your semantics game.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes, that's right. I did propose banning assault rifles. There is absolutely no reason for an average citizen to be in possession of an assault rifle. Call me a fascist or whatever nonsense you can come up with. You don't need an assault rifle. Period.

So those fictional gun banning laws aren't so fictional after all, are they?

Now that your first point is totally debunked, would you care to define 'assault rifle'?

There is no gun-banning law;

Yet

so, yes, they are fictional. And you know exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody - including myself - is proposing a law that would take away your right to bear arms.

Bullshit.

And no, I'm not playing your semantics game.

If you can't define it, how are you going to ban it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

GuyPinestra cannot even argument his point logically.

There are no gun banning laws in the mill. There will be none.

No one wants to take Guy's or my weapons from us.

However, their is no legitimate need for us to have military-style weapons.

 

[GuyPinestra]

GuyPinestra cannot even argument his point logically.

There are no gun banning laws in the mill. There will be none.

No one wants to take Guy's or my weapons from us.

However, their is no legitimate need for us to have military-style weapons.

OK, same question Jake..

Can you define 'assault weapon'? Or as you put it, 'military-style'...?

 

[Clementine]

How long before the Tragedy of the Batman Movie shooting will be twisted Politically into another Anti gun Campaign by the Democrats? I'm thinking Monday Morning the pro gun ban people will be in high gear. I think that they will use the weekend to plan their strike which will commence at 9AM Monday morning on all of those usual suspect shows. They will wait until the majority of people who aren't Democrats do what they do best... Go to WORK.

I heard libs trying to tie it to the right immediately. One anchor quickly looked to see if he could find the guy's name on the tea party member list. The cries for gun control are so predictable.

None of them can explain how more laws will stop murders. It's always about more feel good crap that accomplishes nothing. I suppose the ignorant believe that criminals strive to follow laws and they'll actually make a difference.

The left is trying to say that all guns must be taken away from everyone except for the government and the police. As if they'd never allow them to fall into the hands of criminals (Fast and Furious).

Criminals would love that because they'd have more power and flexibility over an unarmed population. They'd like the security of knowing that the home they are planning to invade will not have a gun in it.

As it is, the drug cartels are nearly as strong and well-armed as the military. Gangs are a worthy opponent for police. I feel safer with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. At least we can outnumber the bad guys, yet the left wants to take that away every time the bad guys strike. The mushy gushy feel good libs are absolute fools if they think any law in the land will ever affect any criminals.

I hate violence, but what I hate worse is defenseless innocents getting slaughtered because they respect the law and have no means to defend themselves in situations like this. Criminals will walk into malls, schools and theaters with guns no matter how many signs are posted saying it's not allowed. The ones who obey the law always lose in the end when they meet up with the cartels, gangs and other crazies.