LET'S BAN GUNS!

[The Conservative]

22196351_10155105891200914_167071437011631394_n.jpg

[DBTrek]

For Monte.

[SuburbanFarmer]

[img]22196351_10155105891200914_167071437011631394_n.jpg[/img]

TSA
Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer
bollards installed in front of most public buildings.

[Kazmyr]

TSA
Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer
bollards installed in front of most public buildings.

[de officiis]

NY Times out with an article this AM proposing to repeal the entire 2A, hunting not even addressed therein

Read it. At least it's honest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opin ... t-nra.html

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.
The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

See monty, and GCF just be honest about what you want.

I’m not interested in a full repeal of the amendment. It does need to be redefined though, since we don’t have a fucking militia.

Either allow all military hardware to civilians, and watch the carnage, or define whatever you want to, to take away crowd-killing weapons. I don’t care what the definition is, since we always get dragged back into semantics and claims of expertise.

Should the Vegas shooter have had access to an RPG for freedom? Why not an M1 Abrams? Why is one weapon acceptable, and not another?

The reason is crowd-killing ability. Just be consistent, at the minimum. Sell all of your crazy shit to civilians, or leave only the hunting gear. This current half-ass reaction cycle is infuriating.

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1267&p=2721&hilit=Heller#p2717

See Paragraph 2...

[SuburbanFarmer]

Read it. At least it's honest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opin ... t-nra.html





See monty, and GCF just be honest about what you want.

I’m not interested in a full repeal of the amendment. It does need to be redefined though, since we don’t have a fucking militia.

Either allow all military hardware to civilians, and watch the carnage, or define whatever you want to, to take away crowd-killing weapons. I don’t care what the definition is, since we always get dragged back into semantics and claims of expertise.

Should the Vegas shooter have had access to an RPG for freedom? Why not an M1 Abrams? Why is one weapon acceptable, and not another?

The reason is crowd-killing ability. Just be consistent, at the minimum. Sell all of your crazy shit to civilians, or leave only the hunting gear. This current half-ass reaction cycle is infuriating.

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1267&p=2721&hilit=Heller#p2717

See Paragraph 2...

2. 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

See, again though, they refuse to define wtf they're talking about. What, exactly, is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon?? Weapons aren't, by definition, dangerous?

[Fife]

TSA
Restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer
bollards installed in front of most public buildings.

[heydaralon]

I’m not interested in a full repeal of the amendment. It does need to be redefined though, since we don’t have a fucking militia.

Either allow all military hardware to civilians, and watch the carnage, or define whatever you want to, to take away crowd-killing weapons. I don’t care what the definition is, since we always get dragged back into semantics and claims of expertise.

Should the Vegas shooter have had access to an RPG for freedom? Why not an M1 Abrams? Why is one weapon acceptable, and not another?

The reason is crowd-killing ability. Just be consistent, at the minimum. Sell all of your crazy shit to civilians, or leave only the hunting gear. This current half-ass reaction cycle is infuriating.

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1267&p=2721&hilit=Heller#p2717

See Paragraph 2...

2. 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

See, again though, they refuse to define wtf they're talking about. What, exactly, is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon?? Weapons aren't, by definition, dangerous?

nun chucks are quite dangerous and unusual in the hands of a trained assassin. That is what the court case is referring to fyi.

[Speaker to Animals]

They better not go after the weapons dealer at the local flea market. Flying stars are not dangerous!

[Hastur]