So Only Cops And Crooks Can Have Assault Weapons In California?

[Defiant1]

Bravo! Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on the streets.

I can tell you are well informed about firearms. Idiot

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

If a group of jungle fighters are approaching my house, I'm only concerned with body count.

 

[Nosmo King]

Bravo! Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on the streets.

I can tell you are well informed about firearms. Idiot

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

Look dimwit the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting ducks you stupid fool. The 2nd is about defense and if the bad guys have guns with magazines and higher rates of fire then we citizens are entitled to own the same damn weapons. OH SNAP!!!!!!!

The second amendment does not guarantee a civilian arms race. It does not guarantee your right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier.

You seem to prefer to pepper your posts with insults. One day you will learn, mature and leave that behind. You don't have to cite your own intellectual and emotional shortcomings in order to make a point.

 

[Conservative65]

"States rights" at work

State rights do not trump the Constitution.

States' rights are in the Constitution.

 

[Nosmo King]

Bravo! Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on the streets.

I can tell you are well informed about firearms. Idiot

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

If a group of jungle fighters are approaching my house, I'm only concerned with body count.

Are you posting from Rwanda? Or do you suffer from a 'Rambo',fantasy? How often do armed cadres approach your house? Can we debate from a platform of reality, or must we crawl through boyish fantasy and fear?

 

[Conservative65]

"States rights" at work

State rights do not trump the Constitution.

If they did the Darkies would still have separate drinking fountains. Ah, the Good Old Days.

No. People wouldn't expect the government to do things for them when something bad happened in their life or they didn't have what someone else earned. Those are the good old days.

 

[BluesLegend]

I can tell you are well informed about firearms. Idiot

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

Look dimwit the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting ducks you stupid fool. The 2nd is about defense and if the bad guys have guns with magazines and higher rates of fire then we citizens are entitled to own the same damn weapons. OH SNAP!!!!!!!

The second amendment does not guarantee a civilian arms race. It does not guarantee your right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier.

You seem to prefer to pepper your posts with insults. One day you will learn, mature and leave that behind. You don't have to cite your own intellectual and emotional shortcomings in order to make a point.

So typical of dimwit gun control advocates, they lose the argument on small arms AR15 style rifles so they deflect with their rocket propelled grenades and fighter jet stupidity. AR15 style rifles are the modern equivalent of the type of arms the 2nd amendment protects. Do these bunch of dumb asses even have a clue as to the deadly type of arms available to the people in the late 1700's? They owned some nasty weapons in the 1700's that would be illegal today. Tune in next week when these idiots try to ban Daisy BB guns.

 

[froggy]

That's Cops, Crooks and crooked Cops. Lol

 

[Nosmo King]

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

Look dimwit the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting ducks you stupid fool. The 2nd is about defense and if the bad guys have guns with magazines and higher rates of fire then we citizens are entitled to own the same damn weapons. OH SNAP!!!!!!!

The second amendment does not guarantee a civilian arms race. It does not guarantee your right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier.

You seem to prefer to pepper your posts with insults. One day you will learn, mature and leave that behind. You don't have to cite your own intellectual and emotional shortcomings in order to make a point.

So typical of dimwit gun control advocates, they lose the argument on small arms AR15 style rifles so they deflect with their rocket propelled grenades and fighter jet stupidity. AR15 style rifles are the modern equivalent of the type of arms the 2nd amendment protects. Do these bunch of dumb asses even have a clue as to the deadly type of arms available to the people in the late 1700's? They owned some nasty weapons in the 1700's that would be illegal today. Tune in next week when these idiots try to ban Daisy BB guns.

The civilian arms race must stop. No one needs a BAR, a Thompson machine gun, a flamethrower or any other military weapon. I submit that the semi-automatic firing system coupled with high capacity ammunition magazines are weapons designed for a battlefield, not for use on our streets.

Some gun lovers, in fact all gun lovers, have had what may be described as a pleasurable experience with guns. Too many other American citizens have had utterly tragic experiences with guns. All I ask is those gun lovers bear simple respect and acknowledgment of the tragic outcomes of gun violence. Gun lovers in their zeal to be the hero gunslinger must also bear some of the responsibility for the deaths and injuries wrought by gun violence.

At one time, no too long ago, the NRA was an organization that promoted sporting use of guns and hunter safety. Today, the NRA and those who show blind alleigence to the guns at any cost agenda of the NRA have fallen short in their understanding of the consequence of flooding our streets with military weapons. Have any of those gun lovers ever considered the consequences of unfettered and unlimited access to guns by each and every citizen, in spite of the mental and emotional and criminal circumstances of that citizenry? Why is it so easy to dismiss not only gun violence and a fact, but those who argue for common sense gun legislation?

What is the higher noble purpose of the semi-automatic firing system and high capacity magazine? Does it make you a true 'sportsman'? Are they designed as hunting and sporting weapons? Or are they simply designed to run up a body count?

 

[rcfieldz]

I should have said Bad Guys instead of Crooks. So good guys get to hide in their homes with less fire power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These are proposed measures reflecting the will of the people of the state of California, introduced at the behest of the people by their elected representatives.

And the people are at liberty to oppose the proposed measures through the political process, or if the measures become law, through the judicial process with a court challenge.

In addition, however unwise or unwarranted these measures might be, they are nonetheless Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, in no way 'violating' the Second Amendment.

Last, the inconsistency and hypocrisy common to most on the right haven't gone unnoticed: if the states have the 'right' to compel a woman to give birth against her will, or the 'right' to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, in accordance with the 'will of the people,' then so too does California have the 'right' to regulate firearms as it sees fit.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I should have said Bad Guys instead of Crooks. So good guys get to hide in their homes with less fire power.

No, again, Californians are at liberty to seek to overturn the measures through the political or judicial process if they see fit.

Moreover, AR pattern and similar rifles are rarely used to commit crimes; indeed, long guns overall used in crimes is less than 2 percent.

Californians have ample opportunity to secure other types of effective firearms for self-defense.

Consequently, your argument fails as hyperbolic demagoguery.

 

[Agit8r]

"States rights" at work

State rights do not trump the Constitution.

No constitutional issue here.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-- Antonin Scalia; from District of Columbia v. Heller

So you would not be opposed to a state limiting the access to abortion. One thing about those laws imposing conditions it only affects law abiding citizens

I didn't even say I supported the laws in question. I just pointed out that there isn't a constitutional issue with banning the sale of this or that class of weapon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"States rights" at work

State rights do not trump the Constitution.

No constitutional issue here.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-- Antonin Scalia; from District of Columbia v. Heller

So you would not be opposed to a state limiting the access to abortion. One thing about those laws imposing conditions it only affects law abiding citizens

I didn't even say I supported the laws in question. I just pointed out that there isn't a constitutional issue with banning the sale of this or that class of weapon.

Correct.

To acknowledge the fact that such measures comply with current Second Amendment jurisprudence – are in no way 'un-Constitutional' – is not to agree with or endorse the measures.

Indeed, if residents of the state believe the laws manifest as an undue burden on the Second Amendment right, they're at liberty to challenge the measures in Federal court.

 

[Agit8r]

"States rights" at work

State rights do not trump the Constitution.

No constitutional issue here.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-- Antonin Scalia; from District of Columbia v. Heller

So you would not be opposed to a state limiting the access to abortion. One thing about those laws imposing conditions it only affects law abiding citizens

I didn't even say I supported the laws in question. I just pointed out that there isn't a constitutional issue with banning the sale of this or that class of weapon.

Correct.

To acknowledge the fact that such measures comply with current Second Amendment jurisprudence – are in no way 'un-Constitutional' – is not to agree with or endorse the measures.

Indeed, if residents of the state believe the laws manifest as an undue burden on the Second Amendment right, they're at liberty to challenge the measures in Federal court.

Yes. I actually think that going after guns based on having a pistol grip, etc, is a waste of political energy. I'd rather see them spend that energy on banning the sale of high capacity magazines, and limiting the trade of existing high capacity magazines.

 

[Rustic]

Firearm laws suck in California. You don't even have the right to protect yourself if a criminal breaks into your home and attacks you.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"States rights" at work

State rights do not trump the Constitution.

No constitutional issue here.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-- Antonin Scalia; from District of Columbia v. Heller

So you would not be opposed to a state limiting the access to abortion. One thing about those laws imposing conditions it only affects law abiding citizens

It is a settled and accepted fact of 14th Amendment jurisprudence that the states may not violate a woman's right to privacy by compelling her to give birth against her will through force of law; women who are law-abiding citizens.

As the Heller Court correctly observed, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government – where current Second Amendment jurisprudence considers measures such as those proposed in California to be reasonable and Constitutional.

That may very well change in time, but is currently the law.

And should such measures be invalidated by the courts in the future, laws such as those proposed in California would be un-Constitutional, a violation of the Second Amendment right.

The states do not have the authority to deny citizens their Constitutional rights – the right to privacy, the right to equal protection of the law, or to prohibit citizens from possessing firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense; but just as a woman's right to privacy is not absolute, where abortion may be unlawful in certain circumstances, so too may restrictions and limitations on the right to possess firearms be enacted.

Again, if residents of California perceive those laws as being invalid because they impose conditions which only affect law abiding citizens, then they're at liberty to file suit in Federal court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bravo! Such weapons belong in the hands of a well regulated militia, not on the streets.

I can tell you are well informed about firearms. Idiot

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

Look dimwit the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting ducks you stupid fool. The 2nd is about defense and if the bad guys have guns with magazines and higher rates of fire then we citizens are entitled to own the same damn weapons. OH SNAP!!!!!!!

Wrong.

Second Amendment jurisprudence makes reference only to handguns as a weapon citizens are entitled to possess for self-defense, not AR 15s; the Second Amendment is not 'about' possessing any firearm so desired, for any purpose so desired, for any situation so desired.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can tell you are well informed about firearms. Idiot

Your lack of a cogent, responsible reply betrays much about you intellectual standing.

Play ground responses such as yours have no credibility in serious debate.

While I would certainly not call you an idiot...we've debated this often and I know better...I'll never understand the lefts fixation with ARs and AKs.

A semi-automatic is a semi-automatic is a semi-automatic.

Whoopi Goldberg thinks they are fully automatic.

You don't believe that too I hope.

One trigger pull, one bullet...just like every other commonly owned firearm in the United States.

Why are 'mass shootings' 'mass' shootings? Could it be the rat of fire and capacity of the weapon? What is the noble practical use of such weapons? To be a more effective sportsman, or to run up,the body count?

Look dimwit the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting ducks you stupid fool. The 2nd is about defense and if the bad guys have guns with magazines and higher rates of fire then we citizens are entitled to own the same damn weapons. OH SNAP!!!!!!!

The second amendment does not guarantee a civilian arms race. It does not guarantee your right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier.

You seem to prefer to pepper your posts with insults. One day you will learn, mature and leave that behind. You don't have to cite your own intellectual and emotional shortcomings in order to make a point.

None of those are arms. Start over!