Guns, Insurance, and alcohol

[Cypress]

So you want to ban the clips of the Ruger 10/.22 too? What's next?

Go to Camp Perry during the National Matches and tell those civillians that.

LOL! And I could bludgeon you over the head with the butt of my black powder revolver too. So what?

Mass murder of children by other kids. Maybe they should teach a little responsibility and respect instead of that CRT shit.

no one said we can ever eliminate all gun violence. You are either are in favor of reducing mass slaughter, or you're not.

I just went to the Academy Sporting Goods website, and checked out the Remington, Ruger, and Rossi bolt-action and semi-auto hunting rifles.

None of them had high capacity 30 round or 45 round ammo clips.

Those hunting rifles had ten round clips.

If you need 30 rounds to shoot a deer, you are a terrible shot who shouldn't even be shooting a rifle, and you may even be a threat to other hunters and hikers.

In fact, you have no legitimate civilian need for a high capacity ammo magazine which is a military innovation for the battlefield conditions of killing other humans.
.

[RB 60]

I have a Hawkins 50 cal and a Walker Colt that I shoot also.

I have a genuine Colt reproduction 1860 Army NIB too, along with all the accessories to go with it and the Uberti, both are .44. The Long Rifle is a .50.

[ExpressLane]

no one said we can ever eliminate all gun violence. You are either are in favor of reducing mass slaughter, or you're not.

I just went to the Academy Sporting Goods website, and checked out the Remington, Ruger, and Rossi bolt-action and semi-auto hunting rifles.

None of them had high capacity 30 round or 45 round ammo clips.

Those hunting rifles had ten round clips.

If you need 30 rounds to shoot a deer, you are a terrible shot who shouldn't even be shooting a rifle, and you may even be a threat to other hunters and hikers.

In fact, you have no legitimate civilian need for a high capacity ammo magazine which is a military innovation for the battlefield conditions of killing other humans.
.

Wrong. I just posted a video showing why I need an AR 15 . It's not up to you to decide what other people need or don't need.

[Cypress]

1) Note that the Republicans are using exactly the same logic to ban abortion, gay marriages, contraceptives and whatever else floats their boat.

2) I strongly disagree that exercising our unalienable rights should be based upon "need". Do the Usual Trolls on JPP "need" a computer? No they don't. Do protestors "need" to have groups larger than 100? No, they don't.

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional. Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians, and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

[Doc Dutch]

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional. Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians, and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

So is banning Abortion. See how that works? When We, the People believe that government dictates our rights, that the Constitution limits our rights, then we are headed for an autocratic state.

GPS is a "military battlefield innovation".

[ExpressLane]

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional. Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians, and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

Its a different SCOTUS now. New York just had a gun law that had stood for over 100 years overturned.

[Cypress]

Its a different SCOTUS now. New York just had a gun law that had stood for over 100 years overturned.

So you assert judicial precedence and case law mean nothing, and whenever the Supreme Court has more mainstream and liberal justices, Roe v Wade can just be reinstated, and we can go back to the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

[T. A. Gardner]

You don't have a constitutional right to high capacity ammunition clips combined with a semi -automatic rifle.

There is no legitimate civilian need for that kind of weapon.

I could kill you with a traditional hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver. But it would be more challenging to quickly kill and maim dozens of unwitting victims with those weapons.

That's what we're talking about, mass murder of dozens of victims.

It's obvious you know little about firearms.

This is a clip of ammunition:



This is a magazine holding ammunition



Clips make it convenient to load magazines which are then used in the firearm to feed rounds for firing.

Aside from that, that cat is already out of the bag. Anyone can 3D print magazines for firearms now, and getting the springs made is a snap.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Two simple proposals:

1. All gun owners must purchase liability insurance for every weapon they own. No insurance, no gun.
2. If you have had a DUI in the last five years, or multiple DUI convictions, no gun.

I'm pretty sure that would effectively keep an AR-15 out of the hands of an 18 year old with no training.

Discuss.

I agree. And if you're careless and your weapons are stolen or otherwise misused because you did not secure them, your insurance policy won't pay to cover your loss -- and you won't be able to buy another policy (or gun) for two years.

It wouldn't have stopped Murderboy Rittenhouse though. He got an older friend to buy his murder weapon for him. So add a rider to that -- if you buy a gun and insurance policy for someone else, YOU are criminally liable for any crimes they commit with it.

[ExpressLane]

So you assert judicial precedence and case law mean nothing, and whenever the Supreme Court has more mainstream and liberal justices, Roe v Wade can just be reinstated, and we can go back to the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

Certainly a possibility. Elections have consequences.

[ExpressLane]

I agree. And if you're careless and your weapons are stolen or otherwise misused because you did not secure them, your insurance policy won't pay to cover your loss -- and you won't be able to buy another policy (or gun) for two years.

It wouldn't have stopped Murderboy Rittenhouse though. He got an older friend to buy his murder weapon for him. So add a rider to that -- if you buy a gun and insurance policy for someone else, YOU are criminally liable for any crimes they commit with it.

The Supreme Court just shot down a 100 year old law that put an unconstitutional burden on gun ownership. Your insurance would be shot down for the same reason.

[SmarterthanYou]

the pre-2008 judicial maxim that gun ownership is not a private individual right.

that is historically and factually incorrect

[RB 60]

Bans on high capacity ammunition clips are constitutional. Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to overturn local ordinances banning them.

I don't see any connection between keeping a military battlefield innovation out of the hands of civilians, and a person having the sovereign right to control their own body.

This discussion is not about abortion. Quit moving the goalposts when you're defeated in dialogue.

[Cypress]

It's obvious you know little about firearms.

This is a clip of ammunition:

In movies, television, popular culture clip has always used colloquially and interchangeably with magazine.

It wasn't until recent years that gun huggers started freaking out and having schoolgirl meltdowns about the proper use of grammar.

The point still stands that as a civilian you have no legitimate need for a 30 or 45 round magazine. Being able to masturbate over your Rambo fantasies is not sufficient justification for you to need to have access military innovations designed for battlefield conditions.

[SmarterthanYou]

In movies, television, popular culture clip has always used colloquially and interchangeably with magazine.

It wasn't until recent years that gun huggers started freaking out and having schoolgirl meltdowns about the proper use of grammar.

The point still stands that as a civilian you have no legitimate need for a 30 or 45 round magazine. Being able to masturbate over your Rambo fantasies is not sufficient justification for you to need to have access military innovations designed for battlefield conditions.

in a hypothetical 'ban', would criminals still be able to acquire 30+ round mags and/or automatic weapons????