Should these be included in an assault weapons ban?

[Inthemiddle]

View attachment 23582

I get you think that's really clever. In fact, you highlight your ignorance.

A "well regulated" militia referred to the fact that the states would appoint officers for the militia. The second regulation was that all able bodied men in the state were required to keep and maintain arms, such as to be always able to call forth a militia on an instant's notice.

Here's a better question: How has the very obvious and well documented context of the second amendment, and the founding fathers' clear intentions become forgotten? How as "everybody NEEDS a gun because you can't trust the government" been twisted into "you don't really need a gun because you can trust the government"?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271057-gun-control-just-like-the-founders-intended-it.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

View attachment 23582

How did in working order as to be expect get to be anything other than what it is? OH that's right you gun grabbers change the meaning of well regulated to fit your tiny pea brain mentality.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

You are incorrect about #3.

There is no militia requirement to keep and bear arms.

I dare you too check Miller vs. U.S. Lewis vs, US and you are confusing militia with National guard. Do not get snared in that trap.
I wo;; add one more thiung not every firearm is protected by the second amendment, one is a sawed off shot gun, because it doesn't have a reasonable relationship for militia use.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

View attachment 23582

And we know liberal are terrified of a well armed unregulated populace. Actually anything unregulated makes them wet their pants.

 

[bripat9643]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

You would support banning all guns, period, if you thought it had a chance to pass.

You and your ilk don't give a crap about the 2nd amendment.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[The Rabbi]

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

You would support banning all guns, period, if you thought it had a chance to pass.

You and your ilk don't give a crap about the 2nd amendment.

Who do you think you're fooling?

They don't know WTF they're talking about. Fully automatic weapons have been very tightly controlled, practically banned, since 1934.
And thsi gun can shoot more than 8 rounds without reloading:

 

[earlycuyler]

No, but thees should-

 

[bayoubill]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

anything other than teeth and fingernails should be included in the assault-weapons ban...

 

[Rinata]

View attachment 23582

I get you think that's really clever. In fact, you highlight your ignorance.

A "well regulated" militia referred to the fact that the states would appoint officers for the militia. The second regulation was that all able bodied men in the state were required to keep and maintain arms, such as to be always able to call forth a militia on an instant's notice.

Here's a better question: How has the very obvious and well documented context of the second amendment, and the founding fathers' clear intentions become forgotten? How as "everybody NEEDS a gun because you can't trust the government" been twisted into "you don't really need a gun because you can trust the government"?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271057-gun-control-just-like-the-founders-intended-it.html

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.

What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

What is the mechanism by which "proper discipline and training" is provided to members of this militia? How well disciplined was Adam Lanza? James Holmes? Jared Loughner? Cho Seung Hui?

Until this so-called militia is being adequately regulated, the purported right of the people to keep and bear arms MUST be infringed. If it is not regulated (or infringed upon), such a militia actually undermines and threatens the security of the state.

Daily Kos: What IS a well-regulated militia?

 

[bayoubill]

No, but thees should-

if they're set for full-auto, then, yeah... they could be dangerous in the wrong hands...

 

[Flopper]

At the federal level, it's not likely that any firearms are going to be banned. Firearms are so prevalent in the US, that it's not likely that the people would support a ban. It's a similar problem with entitlements. So many people support them, that's it almost impossible to seriously cut them back. Unfortunately, just because the people want something does not make it right. Too little gun control and to many entitlements are bad for the nation regardless of public support.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

At the federal level, it's not likely that any firearms are going to be banned. Firearms are so prevalent in the US, that it's not likely that the people would support a ban. It's a similar problem with entitlements. So many people support them, that's it almost impossible to seriously cut them back. Unfortunately, just because the people want something does not make it right. Too little gun control and to many entitlements are bad for the nation regardless of public support.

Nothing about a firearm is a want but a need,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

View attachment 23582

I get you think that's really clever. In fact, you highlight your ignorance.

A "well regulated" militia referred to the fact that the states would appoint officers for the militia. The second regulation was that all able bodied men in the state were required to keep and maintain arms, such as to be always able to call forth a militia on an instant's notice.

Here's a better question: How has the very obvious and well documented context of the second amendment, and the founding fathers' clear intentions become forgotten? How as "everybody NEEDS a gun because you can't trust the government" been twisted into "you don't really need a gun because you can trust the government"?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271057-gun-control-just-like-the-founders-intended-it.html

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.

What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

What is the mechanism by which "proper discipline and training" is provided to members of this militia? How well disciplined was Adam Lanza? James Holmes? Jared Loughner? Cho Seung Hui?

Until this so-called militia is being adequately regulated, the purported right of the people to keep and bear arms MUST be infringed. If it is not regulated (or infringed upon), such a militia actually undermines and threatens the security of the state.

Daily Kos: What IS a well-regulated militia?

What does "well regulated" mean?

How many times are you going to ask this question?

 

[Nosmo King]

Well regulated is not about government control or modern day regulatory procedures.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Then there are, presumably, some controls, rules, principles, methods to assure regular operation and someone responsible to ensure good order and proper discipline. Could you elaborate on that?

Basically what well regulated means is "as expected and in working order"

As expected by whom? The citizens they are allegedly to protect, or their opposition?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which ones should be banned, and which ones should be acceptable for hunting and in home defense purposes?


1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

1. the second Amendment isn't about hunting
2. Nor is it about defending your home against burglars
3. It's about the people gathering together as a militia and defending against a tyrannical government that has over stepped it's Constitutional authority.
So No firearm should be banned that doesn't have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia

You are incorrect about #3.

There is no militia requirement to keep and bear arms.

Correct.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual, not collective, right:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then there are, presumably, some controls, rules, principles, methods to assure regular operation and someone responsible to ensure good order and proper discipline. Could you elaborate on that?

Basically what well regulated means is "as expected and in working order"

As expected by whom? The citizens they are allegedly to protect, or their opposition?

Expected by whom? I am glad you asked
Here is a quote from the 18th century with well regulated used in it.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At the federal level, it's not likely that any firearms are going to be banned. Firearms are so prevalent in the US, that it's not likely that the people would support a ban. It's a similar problem with entitlements. So many people support them, that's it almost impossible to seriously cut them back. Unfortunately, just because the people want something does not make it right. Too little gun control and to many entitlements are bad for the nation regardless of public support.

Indeed, and there is simply no political will to enact a Nationwide ban.

What’s interesting, however, is that it seems the fears the NRA had at the outset of the Heller case are being realized, where states with restrictive gun laws are being allowed to retain those law, the courts upholding such measures as Constitutional.

The NRA and its supporters had hoped to have the more restrictive laws in states such as New York and California invalidated in the wake of Heller, creating a more uniform body of laws across the country and, in the NRA’s view, greater Second Amendment ‘freedom.’

It’s telling to see conservatives at odds with states exercising their ‘rights.’

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IMHO - 3 & 7 are bannable.

Many others appear OK to me but I don't know the weapons well enough to be able to say for sure. High capacity magazines are my sticking point.

regards.

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

This is a single action revolver, which means you have to cock it every time in order to fire it, yet you want to ban it because it holds 9 rounds.

Feel stupid yet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

Every weapon ever made is designed for open warfare. Spestznaz made shovels into one of the most dangerous things ever carried into battle. Should we ban shovels?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0McQ-cQmUZA]Special Forces Shovel : Cold Steel Throwing Shovel - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Semi-automatic weapons are not weapons of warfare.

You're welcome, mouth breather.

Thats the new buzz word from the gun hysterical gun grabbers

weapons of warfare??! with that logic a 500 mosberg or a Remington 870 would need to be banned,both have been used by the military. Both are pump guns.

Those high capacity magazines are dangerous, to the guy with the gun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msQBWdQdztY]Is it accurate? (AR-15 22 LR Conversion) - YouTube[/ame]