Gun Control & RKBA

krispos42

(49,445 posts)

28. So, the OP reinforces what I said before, and you called a lie

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:18 PM

Feb 2013

Banning certain semiautomatic weapons with military-style features—commonly referred to as “assault weapons”...

(That's not too long for you to read, is it?)

That is what I said the Feinstein bill did, and you said it did not, and that I was wrong. Well, I'm still right, you're still wrong, and I'm still waiting for you to admit it.

New-manufacture semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines will still be sold if Feinstein's bill becomes law.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Constitutionality of Proposed Firearms Legislation [View all] SecularMotion Feb 2013 OP

The second two matter... gcomeau Feb 2013 #1

Agree on the "that looks scary" bans. nt Deep13 Feb 2013 #3

The bottom line is weapons that can cause mass carnage in a matter of seconds SecularMotion Feb 2013 #4

restrictions already exist gejohnston Feb 2013 #5

Just to be clear SecularMotion Feb 2013 #6

minus the Hughs Amendment CLEO sign off gejohnston Feb 2013 #8

Ridiculously ineffective restictions already exist. gcomeau Feb 2013 #12

Your fundamental problem is that "military style features" do not contribute to krispos42 Feb 2013 #14

Your fundamental problem is dishonesty SecularMotion Feb 2013 #16

Don't forget sights... they help you aim them... thus making them more deadly iiibbb Feb 2013 #17

Yep - which was proved beyond doubt in the "Ibid" thread. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #18

So, the OP reinforces what I said before, and you called a lie krispos42 Feb 2013 #28

What you call a barrel shroud is actually a "handguard" and it's standard on ALL rifles. n/t Ashgrey77 Feb 2013 #23

And you conveniently avoided addressing one of my key points... krispos42 Feb 2013 #24

Your comment about a culture war is a distraction. SecularMotion Feb 2013 #30

I wouldn't say that gejohnston Feb 2013 #32

Answer the question, then. krispos42 Feb 2013 #35

worst case scenarios on assault rifles jimmy the one Feb 2013 #36

If it's specious, then why do the gun-control forces keep making it? krispos42 Feb 2013 #37

My bolt-action rifle from WWI has a barrel shroud. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #39

The Second Amendment states: Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #19

So join the Guard. They are still well regulated and still take volunteers. jmg257 Feb 2013 #20

Really? Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #22

Since keeping arms, like bearing arms, referred to militia service - you'll be fine! jmg257 Feb 2013 #25

Congress can decide to equip the military any way they see fit. Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #26

You should look up USC code for Militia definitions as recognized by US law. jmg257 Feb 2013 #27

You are right, that is what the USC says. Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #31

"A little late to complain now." Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #29

What hoax is that exactly? Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #33

I think he means 'the hoax' that the 2nd only secures the right to bear arms as part jmg257 Feb 2013 #34

I see, so only members of the National Guard are 'people' now? AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #40

Derp. Nope - only National Guard are the well regulated Militia. nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #45

If that were true, how would it be relevant? Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #46

Since Heller, it really isn't relevant...for now. It is an interesting study of history, though. jmg257 Feb 2013 #48

so explain why the right of THE PEOPLE to rkba shall not be infringed then. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #51

That's quite obvious - so they can serve in the well-regulated Militia. jmg257 Feb 2013 #52

If that were true, Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #53

Don't know - haven't spent any time investigating what the Guard must/musn't do. nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #54

Well, if the 2nd protected the right join the militia, Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #55

As noted, it doesn't protect the militias' right, it protects the people's right jmg257 Feb 2013 #56

Good point, so I edited #55 Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #57

Based on your info, I would say such disqualifiers would infringe on the right to serve jmg257 Feb 2013 #58

It may be an infringement on the intent of the 2nd, or the intent of the founding fathers to avoid iiibbb Feb 2013 #59

"We" allow such infringements, so we sort of do...since THE well regulated jmg257 Feb 2013 #60

Hm. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a bill of rights? Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #61

Yes - it does! Madison knew they would "never be regarded when opposed to the jmg257 Feb 2013 #63

You're reaching iiibbb Feb 2013 #62

Not a reach at all. There is a BIG difference jmg257 Feb 2013 #64

I won't repeat our conversation concerning the militias. iiibbb Feb 2013 #65

Yes - likely. I think the Militias is a pretty clear concept, what jmg257 Feb 2013 #66

You're right, and we can. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #70

What??? Need to read just a bit further... jmg257 Feb 2013 #71

I don't think you understand the distinction between 'well regulated' and 'unorganized'. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #72

Of course they are related. The constitution defines exactly jmg257 Feb 2013 #73

You're free to believe that all you want. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #74

Well - of course I agree with your summary due to Heller. But that is jmg257 Feb 2013 #77

Fair point. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #80

Cheers. I mentioned somewhere in here about the important issue jmg257 Feb 2013 #83

You also might dig into Federalist Paper #29, Hamilton spoke on this at length. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #78

Have read Hamilton many times. He described a select Militia much closer to the Guard then jmg257 Feb 2013 #81

The issue with these State Defense forces then, is as you noted - they CANNOT be federalized. jmg257 Feb 2013 #75

No, a militia still needs to be subordinate to a civilian authority. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #76

Agreed, and agreed, And is as I said, why the State Forces aren't jmg257 Feb 2013 #79

That horse is very dead. You can quit beating it. N/T GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #67

Now what fun would that be? Nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #68

I don't think it would run afoul of the Constitution... Deep13 Feb 2013 #2

there is no constitutionally protected right for any individual to own firearms. bowens43 Feb 2013 #7

Can you give me an example of a law Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #10

As usual, no reply. Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #47

Wrong and the President says it is Constitutionally protected. Clames Feb 2013 #11

Supreme Court says different. Light House Feb 2013 #13

The SC has stated in safeinOhio Feb 2013 #38

He also spoke about the inability to ban weapons 'in common use'. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #41

The full quote was safeinOhio Feb 2013 #42

You'd be wrong. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #43

Many times on this forum in the past, the question was asked safeinOhio Feb 2013 #44

i agree the quite is correct. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #50

Where is that quote from? Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #49

You made that quote up hack89 Feb 2013 #69

You disagree with the president and the party platform? nt hack89 Feb 2013 #21

I would challenge the constitutionality of AWBs and mag bans Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #9

Ban first, then test the law Progressive dog Feb 2013 #82

Yep. Rec. n/t. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #15

You can feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the gun love here MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #84

Well, if it is "sickening," try getting to the facility quickly (or out of here). Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #85