They can't define what an assult weapon is, but they will ban them...

[BULLDOG]

I’m not advocating a blanket ban. That is you being intentionally misinformed about the issue and who wants what.

Next.

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Great. That should make it easy for you to produce the documentation.

 

[martybegan]

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing, and that is why RKBA supporters laugh at unknowing gun grabbing twats like you when you whine about assault weapons.

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Great. That should make it easy for you to produce the documentation.

Check the link above, although I'm sure you won't get it.

 

[BULLDOG]

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where was television and radio mentioned in the 1st?

semi-automatic firearms are current technology for personal small arms, much like the smoothbore musket or the kentucky rifle was current technology back then.

We aren't talking about TV or radio. You said the 2nd was intended to protect the use of semi autos. I'm just asking for documentation.

And I am asking for documentation that TV and Radio are covered by the 1st amendment.

You aren't really that bright are you? I am making an exact comparison of the extension of another right due to increases in technology.

Try to keep up. This discussion isn't about TVs. It's about guns.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the last 20 years, homicide rates have plummeted, while the number of firearms in circulation has soared.

In other words: you fail.

Has the number of gun homicides “plummeted”? How about gun suicides?

Why is a homicide or a suicide with a gun somehow worse than a homicide or suicide without a gun?

It isn’t worse. It’s easier.

Next.

If it's easier then why are knives and bare hands used to kill more people than rifles every year?

And Suicide is a choice but we all know how you hate it when people have choices

Yeah. It easier to kill with a knife than a gun. That’s perfect logic. Thanks for playing.

Then tell me why knives are used more often to kill than rifles.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well sorry but someone offing themselves with a gun is no reason to restrict MY access to one. Why not prevent all traffic from crossing the golden gate bridge because jumpers seem to have a soft spot for it?

I’m certain there are lots of reasons to restrict YOUR access to firearms. But we aren’t talking about you.

More guns leads to more gun deaths. Simple math.

And, here is the proper way to react to a method of suicide:

Fewer suicides occurring at Golden Gate Bridge

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

then neither are your 4th or 5th amendment rights

 

[martybegan]

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where was television and radio mentioned in the 1st?

semi-automatic firearms are current technology for personal small arms, much like the smoothbore musket or the kentucky rifle was current technology back then.

We aren't talking about TV or radio. You said the 2nd was intended to protect the use of semi autos. I'm just asking for documentation.

And I am asking for documentation that TV and Radio are covered by the 1st amendment.

You aren't really that bright are you? I am making an exact comparison of the extension of another right due to increases in technology.

Try to keep up. This discussion isn't about TVs. It's about guns.

It's about the extension of rights due to changes in technology.

1st amendment protections have been extended to radio and television media, something not around in the 1790's.

It's the same for semi-automatic mechanisms for firearms, another thing not around in the 1790's

I'm sorry logical connections aren't your strong point. Maybe the Care Bear Message board is more your speed?

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope. It’s a ban on certain types of weapons. That is expressly not a blanket ban. Peace, guy. You are boring me.

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Handguns are mentioned, but not semi automatic weapons.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where are computers mentioned in the First?

 

[martybegan]

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Handguns are mentioned, but not semi automatic weapons.

"Common use at the time" a concept going back to miller. The same logic is valid for semi-automatic rifles.

 

[BULLDOG]

I’m certain there are lots of reasons to restrict YOUR access to firearms. But we aren’t talking about you.

More guns leads to more gun deaths. Simple math.

And, here is the proper way to react to a method of suicide:

Fewer suicides occurring at Golden Gate Bridge

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

then neither are your 4th or 5th amendment rights

Start a thread on the 4th or 5th if you want. This is about guns and the 2nd.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where are computers mentioned in the First?

Misdirection. This is about the 2nd.

 

[BULLDOG]

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Handguns are mentioned, but not semi automatic weapons.

"Common use at the time" a concept going back to miller. The same logic is valid for semi-automatic rifles.

What ruling determined that?

 

[martybegan]

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

then neither are your 4th or 5th amendment rights

Start a thread on the 4th or 5th if you want. This is about guns and the 2nd.

They all flow from the same document. You can't pick and choose.

 

[martybegan]

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

it never was. However a blanket ban on all semi-automatic small arms is basically what the amendment was intended to prevent in the first place.

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where are computers mentioned in the First?

Misdirection. This is about the 2nd.

Same document.

 

[martybegan]

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Handguns are mentioned, but not semi automatic weapons.

"Common use at the time" a concept going back to miller. The same logic is valid for semi-automatic rifles.

What ruling determined that?

I referenced "Miller". Use Wiki or google to figure it out yourself.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

and whether taking away guns like this has actually ever worked to make anyone more safe, more free---- or less?

Yes, more safe and freer from the threat of massacres, as demonstrated by the safety of pupils in the other developed nations.

As history shows.

You are four times more likely to die in a plane crash than a mass shooting!

 

[Skull Pilot]

it a ban on a common and widely used mechanism for firearms, and is thus unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment.

What does common or widely used have to do with the 2nd amendment? Can you link to the part where that is designated?

Heller clarified that. Considering what was an "arm" back in the day the amendment was written, and what was common then, the interpretation in Heller isn't to hard to extend to today's semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Link to discussion of that point?

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

Handguns are mentioned, but not semi automatic weapons.

A semiautomatic handgun is still a handgun

 

[BULLDOG]

Where were semi automatic small arms mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Where was television and radio mentioned in the 1st?

semi-automatic firearms are current technology for personal small arms, much like the smoothbore musket or the kentucky rifle was current technology back then.

We aren't talking about TV or radio. You said the 2nd was intended to protect the use of semi autos. I'm just asking for documentation.

And I am asking for documentation that TV and Radio are covered by the 1st amendment.

You aren't really that bright are you? I am making an exact comparison of the extension of another right due to increases in technology.

Try to keep up. This discussion isn't about TVs. It's about guns.

It's about the extension of rights due to changes in technology.

1st amendment protections have been extended to radio and television media, something not around in the 1790's.

It's the same for semi-automatic mechanisms for firearms, another thing not around in the 1790's

I'm sorry logical connections aren't your strong point. Maybe the Care Bear Message board is more your speed?

What case extended protections for semi automatic weapons. Documentation.
The constitution, and supreme court rulings are very specific. If it isn't mentioned, it doesn't exist until a ruling says it does. Documentation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Correlation is not causation.

Yes, the PROPER way to deal with something, deal with the people in question, not a blanket ban on crossing the bridge, which is what gun control basically is.

Thanks for proving my point, dippy.

Nope. Multi-faceted approach. Including making it harder to achieve the goal of killing.

Skippy.

Again, they don't ban people from the bridge, or say weld the cars of their doors shut before they drive onto it.

Blanket bans are just that, and since we have that pesky 2nd amendment around, infringing on my rights is unconstitutional.

That pesky 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

then neither are your 4th or 5th amendment rights

Start a thread on the 4th or 5th if you want. This is about guns and the 2nd.

And my comment is perfectly acceptable in this thread

If one right is not absolute then none are

 

[BULLDOG]

and whether taking away guns like this has actually ever worked to make anyone more safe, more free---- or less?

Yes, more safe and freer from the threat of massacres, as demonstrated by the safety of pupils in the other developed nations.

As history shows.

You are four times more likely to die in a plane crash than a mass shooting!

Doesn't matter.