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

[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.

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

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.

No.

 

[martybegan]

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.

it's only your opinion semi-autos are not covered under the 2nd. The current situation based on Heller and Miller gives my opinion far more weight than yours.

 

[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.

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

That's nice. Has nothing to do with what we were discussing, but nice.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

No.

yes.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

It's obvious that one of us is flailing, and also obvious that your claim has not been proven.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

it's only your opinion semi-autos are not covered under the 2nd. The current situation based on Heller and Miller gives my opinion far more weight than yours.

Never said they weren't covered. You said they were the purpose of the 2nd.

 

[martybegan]

"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.

It's obvious that one of us is flailing, and also obvious that your claim has not been proven.

You haven't proven anything. I've referred to two established cases that show precedent, you haven't provided anything to support a semi-auto ban except "guns are icky"

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

It's obvious that one of us is flailing, and also obvious that your claim has not been proven.

You haven't proven anything. I've referred to two established cases that show precedent, you haven't provided anything to support a semi-auto ban except "guns are icky"

coward.

 

[martybegan]

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.

it's only your opinion semi-autos are not covered under the 2nd. The current situation based on Heller and Miller gives my opinion far more weight than yours.

Never said they weren't covered. You said they were the purpose of the 2nd.

The purpose of the 2nd is to preserve the right of the people to protect themselves from any threat, government, other people, etc.

The wording referred to arms, which at the time were muzzle loaded rifles and muskets, the best technology at the time.

semi-automatic weapons are the current best technology.

 

[martybegan]

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.

It's obvious that one of us is flailing, and also obvious that your claim has not been proven.

You haven't proven anything. I've referred to two established cases that show precedent, you haven't provided anything to support a semi-auto ban except "guns are icky"

coward.

Now you have gone completely off the rails. you provide nothing of substance to this argument.

 

[cnm]

So a handgun in the hands of a practiced rapid reloader and shooter would be an assault weapon, but in the hands of a normal person it wouldn't be?

Ffs. Enough of the gunsplaining.

 

[cnm]

So a glock pistol would be an assault weapon?

Read the damned legislation.

 

[cnm]

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

In other words: you fail.

Yet other countries' firearm homicide rates are a fraction of the US, as are similarly their number of firearms in circulation.

 

[cnm]

The purpose of the 2nd is to preserve the right of the people to protect themselves from any threat, government, other people, etc.

Yet Washington thought it was about a well planned militia to whose discipline everyone submitted. He didn't say a word about self defence.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
https://www.goodreads.com/​

 

[cnm]

And I've already shown you how the gun laws of those European countries you love so much did not lower their murder rates below what they were before the gun laws were passed.

Nah, you gave some screed that gave no useful information, such as what their laws were before they were amended. They were already strict.

 

[cnm]

And FYI London's murder rate has surpassed that of New York City how do you explain that if gun laws lower murder rates?

Only gun nuts talk about murder rates when faced with firearm homicide data.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol..... an assault weapons ban. How hysterical.... they tried this stunt in New York and Connecticut and only 3% of assault weapon owners complied. I'm still laughing.....

 

[cnm]

A ban on semi-autos is a blanket ban. That is what that town in by Chicago is doing,

No it isn't. They are banning certain categories of semis. Read the damned legislation.

 

[cnm]

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

No it isn't. Semi automatic rifles are still permitted. In what chamber are you echoing?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Does the right to bear arms...

... supersede the safety...

... and well being of others?

That seems to be the question...

... our society is struggling with.

A better question is whether the forced inability of law-abiding citizens to defend ourselves and uphold our constitutional rights because of the actions of a very tiny few makes us a safer, freer and better society for all, and whether taking away guns like this has actually ever worked to make anyone more safe, more free---- or less? History says otherwise.

How many times have you been forced to defend yourself with a gun?

If ever, did you put yourself in jeopardy, knowing you had a gun, and that this simple possession gave you the courage to act against common sense?

The meme from the NRA and its fellow travelers is a gun is used 16 trillion times a day (yes, hyperbole, but used for effect) by simply showing the gun, and another 500 times a day, to shoot a bad guy.

Odd that any number can be put into this ^^^ paragraph, and used on forums such as this one. And yet, actual records / facts offer evidence that guns are used everyday to kill or maim a person, under varying circumstances.

Deaths and injury by gun shot are expensive ER interventions, and high speed projectiles do extensive damage to tissue and organs by tumbling upon impact. One who is honest understands why such weapons are used by those intent on killing masses of human beings with a weapon with less recoil and more effect on the target.