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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And what you say applies to all rights

so it is an acceptable direction for the conversation

 

[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.

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.

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.

Dodge.

 

[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 are computers mentioned in the First?

Misdirection. This is about the 2nd.

Same document.

Right, but a totally different section covering a totally different subject. Your opinion doesn't make law. Show the ruling or admit you are just scrambling.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Right, but a totally different section covering a totally different subject. Your opinion doesn't make law. Show the ruling or admit you are just scrambling.

It seems to me it's up to the OP to define the parameters of the thread not you

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Your claim. I'm not going to try to prove your point for you. Prove it, or admit you're full of shit.

 

[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.

A semiautomatic handgun is still a handgun

And?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

And?

Can't understand a simple sentence huh?

 

[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.

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

Has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Has nothing to do with the subject.

Of course it does. And you did not create this thread so really it doesn't matter what you say about the content

 

[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 are computers mentioned in the First?

Misdirection. This is about the 2nd.

And what you say applies to all rights

so it is an acceptable direction for the conversation

I suppose, if you admit you can't prove your previous point

 

[martybegan]

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.

it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have a gun grabbing agenda.

Common use from Miller, right to own handguns in Heller.

There won't be "documentation" until some place tries to ban semi-autos, because you can't have a court case without a ban.

Either you are too dumb not to realize that, or have no real retort and are playing the "show me the papers!" game.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Right, but a totally different section covering a totally different subject. Your opinion doesn't make law. Show the ruling or admit you are just scrambling.

It seems to me it's up to the OP to define the parameters of the thread not you

Seems to me that you are wussing out on your claims and want to move to something else.

 

[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.

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.

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.

Dodge.

Not at all, it's the simple fact of the matter.

That you don't have a real retort is on you and your position.

 

[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 are computers mentioned in the First?

Misdirection. This is about the 2nd.

Same document.

Right, but a totally different section covering a totally different subject. Your opinion doesn't make law. Show the ruling or admit you are just scrambling.

Again, since a semi-auto ban hasn't been before a court yet, there won't be a ruling.

But anyone who isn't a gun grabbing twat such as yourself realizes the RKBA is just that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And what you say applies to all rights

so it is an acceptable direction for the conversation

I suppose, if you admit you can't prove your previous point

I certainly can prove computers were not mentioned in the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

 

[martybegan]

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.

Your claim. I'm not going to try to prove your point for you. Prove it, or admit you're full of shit.

Keep flailing like this, it adds to my post count.

And makes you look like the tard you are.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Has nothing to do with the subject.

Of course it does. And you did not create this thread so really it doesn't matter what you say about the content

Got it. You give up so now you want to move on to something else.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where are computers mentioned in the First?

Misdirection. This is about the 2nd.

Same document.

Right, but a totally different section covering a totally different subject. Your opinion doesn't make law. Show the ruling or admit you are just scrambling.

It seems to me it's up to the OP to define the parameters of the thread not you

Seems to me that you are wussing out on your claims and want to move to something else.

What claims are those?

You're the one trying to direct the thread as you see fit not me

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Has nothing to do with the subject.

Of course it does. And you did not create this thread so really it doesn't matter what you say about the content

Got it. You give up so now you want to move on to something else.

Just because you say something in no way makes it true

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have a gun grabbing agenda.

Common use from Miller, right to own handguns in Heller.

There won't be "documentation" until some place tries to ban semi-autos, because you can't have a court case without a ban.

Either you are too dumb not to realize that, or have no real retort and are playing the "show me the papers!" game.

You should have said it was only your opinion. That's not the same as you presenting your crap as fact.