Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Constitutionality of Proposed Firearms Legislation [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)28. So, the OP reinforces what I said before, and you called a lie
Banning certain semiautomatic weapons with military-style featurescommonly 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.
(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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The bottom line is weapons that can cause mass carnage in a matter of seconds
SecularMotion
Feb 2013
#4
Your fundamental problem is that "military style features" do not contribute to
krispos42
Feb 2013
#14
What you call a barrel shroud is actually a "handguard" and it's standard on ALL rifles. n/t
Ashgrey77
Feb 2013
#23
Since keeping arms, like bearing arms, referred to militia service - you'll be fine!
jmg257
Feb 2013
#25
I think he means 'the hoax' that the 2nd only secures the right to bear arms as part
jmg257
Feb 2013
#34
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
Don't know - haven't spent any time investigating what the Guard must/musn't do. nt
jmg257
Feb 2013
#54
As noted, it doesn't protect the militias' right, it protects the people's right
jmg257
Feb 2013
#56
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
I don't think you understand the distinction between 'well regulated' and 'unorganized'.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#72
You're free to believe that all you want. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#74
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
there is no constitutionally protected right for any individual to own firearms.
bowens43
Feb 2013
#7
Well, if it is "sickening," try getting to the facility quickly (or out of here).
Eleanors38
Feb 2013
#85